Chob Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Chob Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 17, 2000

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/464125

CiteSignal

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/464125
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Binod Kumar Roy and ;Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 17, 2000
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 34573 of 1995
Subject: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chob Singh and Another

Advocate Wasim Alam and ;Bharat Bhusan Pal, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C. and ;B.B. Pal, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 122B; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: 2000(2)AWC877

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Part of AI Studio: get a comprehensive 18-section AI Brief and case-scoped chat on this judgment, plus Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind from the AI Studio hub.

Subscribers get structured AI Briefs and case-scoped chat. Learn more.

Excerpt

property - illegal possession - section 122b of u.p. zamindari of abolition and land reforms act, 1950 and article 226 of constitution of india - petition filed for claiming ownership of the disputed land - disputed land belongs to gaon sabha - petitioner is having the possession since the time of their ancestors - petitioner has filed suit for injunction and application for ad interim injunction - no order has been passed in favour of the petitioner - petitioner unable to prove their title - sub-divisional magistrate passed order to stop illegal construction by with the help of police - issue of ownership regarding the property in possession of the petitioner while pendency of the suit cannot be decided by high court under article 226 - held, possession of the land by the petitioner is illegal. - - 5. it is well known that in our state, there cannot be adverse possession of any gaon sabaha land......of kunwar sen, who are the writ petitioners.5. it is well known that in our state, there cannot be adverse possession of any gaon sabaha land. in fact no such case has also been pleaded by the petitioners. all what petitioners claim is that they are possessing it since the time of their ancestors and that after the enforcement of the u. p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, they became its absolute owner. it is not their specific case that they have title to the lands. the question as to whether they had become owner of the land in question cannot be adjudicated by us in this proceedings under article 226 of the constitution of india. in support of their claim, no title deed or any document particularly of the government worth name has been brought on record by the petitioners except some affidavits, the report of the pleader commissioner, copy of the replication dated 5.10.1995 and counter-affidavit all filed in the suit, which arc required to be considered in the suit in which respondent no. 4 alone was impleaded as party in her persona] capacity and not as pradhan of the village.6. the net question which remains to be answered is as to whether we should interfere.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.

1. The first prayer of the petitioners is to quash the order dated 13.9.1995. passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mant, district 'Mathura in substance the English translation of which reads thus :

'R.I. (M) :

Take trouble of stopping the illegal construction by the help of the police.

Sd/-

Illegible

13.9.1995.'

1.1. The further prayer of thepetitioners is to command respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to Interfere with their possession and other co-tenure holders over the disputed land except according to law and the procedures laid therefor.

2. The petitioners describe the disputed land as a piece of land lying at a distance of about one hundred meters from their residential houses which is in their possession since the time of ancestors where they and their brothers used to keep cattle, cattle fodder, agricultural equipments and there also exists cattle sheds and wooden huts, etc. and they became absolute owners thereof with enforcement of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. From the averments made in the writ petition, it transpires that the petitioners had filed a suit for grant of injunction in which they had also filed an application for grant of an ad interim injunction on which. however, no order in their favour had been passed. The impugned order has been passed on a frivolous petition filed by respondent No. 4 the village Pradhan who was opposed in the election by them. Respondent No. 4 by filing a counter has disputed the claim of the petitioners by stating, inter alia, that there are long standing entries pertaining to title of the Gaon Sabha lands ; that the affidavits are manipulated ones ; that the Pleader Commissioner's report do not support their alleged case ; and that they werenot allowed to grab the property on 13.9.1995.

3. Heard learned counsel.

4. From the document appended as Annexure-1. on which the order Impugned has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, it appears' that the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat had moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Mant district Malhura, that about seven acres of land of Gaon Sabha which is fit for agricultural purposes, is being sought to be illegally taken possession of by Narain Singh and Chob Singh sons of Kunwar Sen, who are the writ petitioners.

5. It is well known that in our State, there cannot be adverse possession of any Gaon Sabaha land. In fact no such case has also been pleaded by the petitioners. All what petitioners claim is that they are possessing it since the time of their ancestors and that after the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, they became its absolute owner. It is not their specific case that they have title to the lands. The question as to whether they had become owner of the land in question cannot be adjudicated by us in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of their claim, no title deed or any document particularly of the Government worth name has been brought on record by the petitioners except some affidavits, the report of the Pleader Commissioner, copy of the Replication dated 5.10.1995 and counter-affidavit all filed in the suit, which arc required to be considered in the suit in which respondent No. 4 alone was impleaded as party in her persona] capacity and not as Pradhan of the village.

6. The net question which remains to be answered is as to whether we should interfere with the aforementioned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mant. district Mathura? Our answer is a definite no for the reason that the suit is pending and that no one can be allowed to take illegal possession ofthe Gaon Sabha land and if any one makes such an attempt, the State should stop It besides the disputed land has not been specified with reference to Plot and or Khata Number and or even by its boundaries In this writ petition.

7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.

8. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri Alok Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State of U. P., within one week for its intimation to the authority concerned.