Damar Bahadur vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun dated 08.07.2019 calling upon him to vacate the said premises on the ground that the land, which was in his possession, belongs to the Gram Sabha.

Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, in terms of Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the "1950 Act"), it is only, on a complaint made by Land Management Committee, that the Assistant Collector can take action for eviction. Section 122-B (2) of the 1950 Act enables the Assistant Collector to take action either on the information received under Section 122-B (1) (from the Land Management Committee) or otherwise. Sub section (2) of Section 122-B of the 1950 Act confers power on the Assistant Collector, irrespective of whether the complaint is received from the Land Management Committee or otherwise, to issue notice to the person concerned to show cause, if he is satisfied that any property, referred to in sub-section (1), has been damaged or misappropriated or any person is in occupation of any land, referred to in that sub section, in contravention of the provisions of the Act. In terms of Section 122-B (2) of the 1950 Act, the Assistant Collector is required to issue a notice calling upon the person concerned to show cause why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation as mentioned in such notice, be not recovered from him or, as the case may be, why he should not be evicted from such land.

It is not obligatory for the Assistant Collector to act only in cases where the complaint is made by Land Management Committee. The ingredients of Sub-Section (2) of Section 122-B of the 1950 Act are, admittedly, satisfied since the petitioner was put on notice and was given an opportunity of being heard.

While Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would insist that the petitioner is in possession of land which was leased out in his favour, the impugned order records that the petitioner was in occupation of land in two different khasras. The question whether the petitioner is justified in his claim that he was only in possession of the land which was leased to him earlier, or whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has encroached upon Gram Sabha land in two different khasras, are all facts in dispute.

In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not, ordinarily, examine disputed questions of fact, for such questions can be effectively examined in revision, if such a remedy is prescribed, or otherwise by availing the common law remedy of filing a suit before the competent civil court.

Leaving it open to petitioner to avail such legal remedies as are available to him in law, against the impugned order, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.