Ram Singh and others vs State of Utter Pradesh and another

Y.K. Sangal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

On the report of Lekhpal, Kanoongo submitted his report dated 14.01.2001 that Karan Lal and Ram Prasad sons of Mohan have not paid the revenue and time of their Pattas has expired, hence the Patta in their favour be canceled. On this report of Lekhpal, objections were filed on behalf of the petitioners but vide order dated 11.06.2001 S.D.O, Bilgram Hardoi has canceled Pattas in their favour and also ordered to expunge their names from the record and the leased land vest in Gaon Sabha. Against this order, a revision was filed and the revision was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow. Against these orders, the instant writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that it is correct that orders for expunging their names was passed and held that land vests in Gaon Sabha but respondents and their employees are trying to dispossess them from the land in dispute forcibly without adopting the procedure laid down. Learned Standing Counsel argued that under the provisions of law in such matters possession can be taken without adopting the procedure prescribed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Law laid down in (1997) 3 SCC 1969 Annamalai Club vs. Government of Tamilnadu is as under :

"Law respects possession, even if there is no valid title to support it. Law does not permit any person to take law into his hands and to dispossess a person in actual without having recourse to a court. The object thereby it to encourage the compliance of the rules of the law and not deprive the person who wanted a person in lawful possession and remove possession according to the appropriate forum and prevent him from going with high hand and eject such person. It could be seen that even after determination of license under the Government Grants Act, the Government is entitled to resume possession but resumption of possession does not mean unilaterally taking possession without recourse of law."

Learned Standing Counsel referred the provisions of Section 176(A)(II) Zamindari Abolition Act, where it is provided that it shall be lawful for the Assistant Collector in charge of sub division to determine at any time the lease in favour of an Asami and upon such determination, the Asami shall not be entitled to any compensation. It is nowhere provided that after determination of the license /lease, possession can be taken forcibly without adopting due process of law from a person who entered into possession under due permission and due process of law.

In the above circumstances, undisputedly, the time for which the Patta was granted in favour of the petitioners has expired and it is said that due revenue has not been paid and no receipt of payment of revenue has been filed, then there is no merit for the relief to set aside the order for expunging the entry from the revenue record and no sufficient ground to set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the revisional court, but without adopting due process of law, petitioners shall not be ejected from the land in their possession.

With the aforesaid direction/observations the writ petition is finally disposed of.