Mohd. Shafi vs Collector,Muzaffarnagar and Others

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 581996 passed by the Assistant Collector respondent No. 2 and the order dated 211998 passed by the Collector, Muzaffarnagar, respondent No. 1 .

The proceedings were taken against the petitioner under Section 122B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. The petitioner was issued a notice in Form 49A as provided under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. The petitioner was issued notice that he was in unauthorised occupation of plot No. 1247 area 0.015 hectare. The petitioner filed objection. It was stated that he was allotted this plot in the year 1979 by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. The Pradhan of Gaon Sabha had issued a receipt. On obtaining the patta he had constructed his house and is in possession over the land in dispute since then. The parties led evidence in the case. The Assistant Collector recorded a finding that the petitioner did not produce any authentic document. He has also not filed any copy of the resolution passed by the Land Management Committee for allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner. He was directed for ejectment from the plot in dispute and further to pay Rs. 3,500/ as damages. The petitioner filed revision against this order. The revision has been dismissed by Respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 211998

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the land was allotted to the petitioner and only thereafter he had made the constructions over the land in dispute. The petitioner failed to produce any evidence to indicate that the Land Management Committee had passed the resolution to allot the land in favour of the petitioner and further the said resolution was approved by the SubDivisional Officer concerned. He had also not filed the original patta. Respondent No. 1 has further recorded a finding that the plot in dispute is recorded for manuring purpose. This is a public utility land and this land could not be allotted to any person in view of the provisions of Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This finding does not suffer from any manifest error of law.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the amount of Rs. 3,500/ fixed as damages is arbitrary. The area of the land is 0.015 hectare. Respondent No. 2 did not record any finding as to on what basis the damages have been fixed. Considering the area and duration of possession the amount of damages is reduced to Rs. 1000/. The petitioner shall pay Rs. 1,000/as damages.

The writ petition is partly allowed. The writ petition is dismissed against the order of ejectment. As regards the damages, it is partly allowed and the amount of damages is reduced from Rs. 3,5007 to Rs.1,000/.