Murari Lal and others vs State of U.P.and others

Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Learned Standing Counsel states that the order impugned has been passed under Rule 176A(2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 29.2.2008, it transpires that the aforesaid order has been passed in breach of principle of natural justice without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are in possession over the land in dispute since prior to the Zamindari Abolition and the petitioners have become Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Since no opportunity of hearing was afforded, therefore, the entire facts could not be brought in the notice of Tahsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Shahjahanpur which has resulted in passing of the impugned order.

Heard Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned standing Counsel and learned Counsel for Gaon Sabha. With the consent of the parties Counsel, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

Learned standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent could not dispute this fact that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Hari Ram V. Gaon Sabha and another, 2004 (97) R.D. 360 decision of this Court in Ram Deo and others v. State of U.P. and others 2008(105) RD 283 in which, this Court has made following observation. "From the above said discussions, it is held that rights of asami can be extinguished by determination of the lease under Rule 176A(2). It is further found that after determination of the lease there is no necessity of filing a suit under section 202 of the Act for ejectment of the asami and the possession of the asami can be taken by Land Management Committee in accordance with the Rules from the commencement of agricultural year following the date of the order. It is further held that before determination of the lease under subrule (2) of Rule 176A, a I notice is required to be given by the Assistant Collector to the lessee."

In view of that the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.2.2008 passed by Tehsildar Sadar, District Shahjahanpur is quashed. The respondents are restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.