W.P. No. 1908 (M/S) of 2015. Case: Vishambhar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.. Uttarakhand High Court
| Case Number | W.P. No. 1908 (M/S) of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Jitendra Chaudhary, Adv. and For Respondents: C.S.C. and Anil Kumar Joshi, Adv. |
| Judges | Alok Singh, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 227; Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 - Section 8; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 117, 122B, 122B(4F), 131, 132, 19, 195, 198, 333, 333A |
| Citation | 2015 (129) RD 785 |
| Judgement Date | August 04, 2015 |
| Court | Uttarakhand High Court |
Judgment:
Alok Singh, J.
1. Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 8.10.2007 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Laksar/Tehsildar, Laksar whereby petitioner was directed to be evicted from the Gram Sabha land of Khasra No. 15 measuring 0.010 hectare, village Bhagtanpur, Majra Niranjanpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar and petitioner was further directed to pay ` 500/- as damages for illegal occupation of the Gram Sabha land and ` 37/- as expenses as well as orders dated 11.11.2010, 23.6.2014 and 26.3.2015 passed by Revisional Court/Collector, Haridwar. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that land of Khasra No. 15 total measuring 0.236 hectare of village Bhagtanpur, Majra Niranjanpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar was/is recorded as Johad (village pond); petitioner was found in unauthorized possession of land measuring 0.010 hectare of Khasra No. 15 whereupon notice was issued to the petitioner on Form 49 Ka and after hearing the petitioner as well as Counsel for Gram Sabha and after examining the entire material available on record, learned Assistant Collector, 1st Class/Tehsildar, Laksar vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.10.2007, was pleased to hold that since land, in question, is a part of Khasra No. 15, which is recorded as land of Johad (village pond), therefore, possession of the petitioner cannot be regularized thereupon and petitioner is liable to be evicted therefrom and was further pleased to pass eviction order against the petitioner; feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed revision before the Collector, Haridwar, however, revision was dismissed and recall application moved by the petitioner was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. I have heard Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No. 1 and have carefully perused the record.
3. Ordinarily, if revision is not heard, on merit by the Revisional Court, this Court would have remanded the matter to the Revisional Court to decide it afresh on merit, in accordance with law. However, if facts are admitted and rights of the parties can be adjudicated by this Court, so in order to avoid unnecessary pendency of the case, remand order is not always warranted and this Court, on the basis of material available on record, can decide the lis on merit, in accordance with law.
4. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner, does not dispute that property, in question, is part of Khasra No. 15 of village Bhagtanpur, Majra Niranjanpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar and entire area of Khasra No. 15 measuring 0.236 hectare was/is recorded as Johad (public pond) of the village.
5. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that petitioner is in possession of land measuring 0.010 hectare only or Khasra No. 15. He contends that since petitioner is a Scheduled Caste, therefore, benefit of section 122-B(4-F) should be extended in favour of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial