Jeet Singh and Others vs Addl. Collector (Administration) and Others

N.L. Ganguly, J.—The three Petitioners were served with a notice for proceedings u/s 122B of Uttar Pradesh Z. Act And L. Rule Act for illegally occupying the Gaon Sabha land. It was said that Jeet Singh, Petitioner occupied 3 bigha 14 bylaws Dharam Singh alias Dharma occupied 3 bight 7 biswa and Shyarn Singh, Petitioner No. 3 occupied 4 bigha 6 biswa of Gaon Sabha land without any proper allotment, they were treated to be trespassers of the Gaon Sabha land. The Petitioners contested before the Tahsildar in proceedings taken against them. It was pleaded that they are landless agricultural labourers belonging to the Kewat alias Mullahs caste. They also claimed to be in possession before 30.06.1975. It was said that the Petitioners were entitled to the benefit of Section 122B(4F) of Uttar Pradesh Z. Act And L. Rule Act, which Is quoted below: (4F). Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing Sub-sections, where any agricultural laborer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha u/s 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before 30.06.1975 and the land so occupied together with land, if any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar, Sirdar�s or asami, does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action Under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such laborers, and it shall be deemed that he has been admitted as bhumidhar with nontransferable rights of that land u/s 195". It. was found by the Tahsildar that the Petitioners do not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for extending the benefit u/s 122B(4F) of the Act. The learned Tahsildar by the three judgments, Annexures 1, 2 and 3, directed eviction of the Petitioners and awarded damages for Rs. 2,290, 2,090 and 2,684, respectively, from the three Petitioners with cost of the litigation.

Heard Sri B.D. Madhya at length and the learned standing counsel. It has not been shown or drawn that Kewat/Mullah are included in the list of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for extending the benefit of Section 122B(4F) of the Act. The revisional authority is Collector (Admen), Meerut, who dismissed the three revisions with the aforesaid findings. I am of the view that the findings recorded by the two courts below that the Petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of Section 122B(4F) of the Act is correct and calls for no Interference so far the findings are concerned and the order for eviction of the Petitioners are concerned. The order for eviction of the Petitioners is hereby affirmed. The Petitioners shall be liable to be evicted in pursuance of the Impugned Orders.

Learned Counsel Sri Madhya submitted that the amount of damages awarded by the court below Is wholly Illegal and not In accordance with the provision of Rule 115F of Uttar Pradesh Z.A. & L.R. Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 115F Is quoted below: "(2) If the damage or loss caused through misappropriation Is of such a nature as Is not capable of being repaired or made good, (as In the case of cutting of trees or grazing of plants or grass), the Collector shall assess the amount of damage or loss in terms of money at the prevailing market rate in the locality. In case of wrongful occupation of land, the damage caused to the Gaon Sabha or the local authority, as the case may be, shall be assessed for each year of such wrongful occupation or any part thereof, at 100 times the amount of rent computed at the sanctioned hereditary rates applicable to the plots concerned. In case the occupant of land continued to remain In such wrongful occupation, he shall be further liable to pay one-eighth of the damages so assessed for every month of the continued occupation after the date of the order". A bare perusal of the rule shows that at random fixation of the amount of damages is not contemplated in the rule. It is for the concerned court to assess the amount of damages or loss In terms of money at the prevailing market rate in the locality. In case of wrongful occupation of land, the damage caused to the Gaon Sabha or the local authority, as the case may be, shall be assessed for each year of such wrongful occupation or any part thereof, at 100 times the amount of rent and shall be assessed at hereditary rates applicable to the plots concerned. In case the occupant of land continued to remain in such wrongful occupation, he shall be further liable to pay one-eighth of the damages so assessed for every month of the continued occupation after the date of the order.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioners are landless agricultural labourers and are otherwise entitled for allotment of Gaon Sabha land. He requested that a direction be Issued In this respect. I do not consider any further direction needed when the revislonal court itself has made such an observation In the revislonal Judgment.

The learned Counsel for trie State of Uttar Pradesh pointed out that before the trial court, there was no submission on behalf of the Petitioners nor the grounds stated In the writ petition was argued before the revislonal authorities. Learned standing counsel Is correct that perusal of the judgment does not show that these arguments were advanced. There was no occasion for arguing this question before the trial court. The Petitioners were not aware that they are surely liable to be evicted. As such, if such a plea was not argued before the trial court, that may be a Justifiable cause for the Petitioners not to have raised such an argument. However, the question that this submission was not Raised before the regional authority. This is a pure legal question which whether raised or not can be examined Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The authorities are not to pass orders at their whims or Issue any order when the law and rules are clear on the point. They are bound to comply with the Orders of the superior authority. If they do not comply. It is the duty of the High Court to Issue such observations for future guidelines. In these circumstances, when the revislonal authority and the trial court both have failed to record any finding about the damages, which was required under the rule, such amount of damages would be unwarranted and I am of the opinion that the amount of damages awarded cannot be sustained. The amount of damages awarded is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed to that extent. However, It is made clear that the trial court may issue notice to the Petitioners for taking steps for assessment of the damages, according to the above mentioned rules and observations, made in this Judgment.

With these observations, the writ petition is partly allowed.