Ram Autar vs State of U.P.

R. K. Agrawal, J.—This petition has been filed against the order dated 271290 contained in annexure2 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Sultanpur in revision filed against the order passed under section 122B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Lekhpal submitted report before the Opposite party No. 3, Tahsildar, that the petitioner has illegally taken possession over GaonSabha land and damages were also claimed against the petiti�oner. Proceedings under section 122B of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act were started against the petitioner and it was ordered that the petitioner be dispossessed from the land in suit and he was directed to pay Rs. 3500/ as damages. The petitioner preferred a revision and the said revision has also been dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, but reduced the compensation to Rs. 2500/ The present writ petition is against the said order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the revisional court had observed that the construction in dispute was old and on that basis the revisional court reduced the amount of damages. I have gone through the order of revisional court. The Revisional Court has clearly observed that the petitioner had failed to prove that his house was an old one. Damages were reduced keeping in view the market value of the land.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in proceedings under section 122B of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act there should be no order for demolition. He has placed reliance in 1987 R. D. page 150 Om Prakash and others v. Board of Revenue and others. The facts of the present case are quite differnet from the above cited case. In that case allotment of the land was cancelled subsequently to the proceedings under section 122B of the Act. In the instant case there is nothing to show that the construction was made with the permission or that the land was settled with the petitioner. In proceedings under section 122B the court had ordered for dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute. It is for the petitioner to remove the construction and to pay the damages. There is, therefore no force in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed.

(Petition dismissed)