AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
1) The present special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.07.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, in the writ petition preferred by the appellant, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1870 of 2023.
2) The first submission of Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the learned Single Judge has observed in para 8, that the impugned notice dated 05.06.2023 may simply be termed as an apprehension of the petitioner, and if action pursuant to the observation made in the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 is taken, perhaps, then the petitioner may be well within his rights to defend such actions. Mr. Singh submits that the recommendation contained in the impugned notice dated 05.06.2023, is as good as an order against the petitioner / appellant, and the appellant is entitled to assail the same even at the stage of recommendation.
3) We cannot agree with Mr. Singh on this aspect. A recommendation is merely a recommendation, and it may, or may not be accepted, or acted upon. Therefore, as observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant / petitioner would be entitled to raise the challenge to a definite order which may be passed in pursuance of the recommendation, and not before. .
4) The next submission of Mr. Singh is that, in para 9 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has raised a doubt with regard to the claim of the petitioner / appellant over the disputed land. We find that the learned Single Judge has made an observation only on the basis of the pleadings of the appellant / petitioner. However, as the learned Single Judge has himself observed, he has not returned any finding. That being the position, in our view, the appellant could have no grievance with the observation made by the learned Single Judge in para 9 of the impugned order.
5) The learned Single Judge has directed the Assistant Collector, First Class, to decide the appellant’s application under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, i.e., Demarcation case No. 06-04 of 2022, as expeditiously as possible.
6) That being the position, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.