Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21221 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sushila Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- CSC Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶1Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.7-gaon sabha.

¶2The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quasing the impugned notice/explanation dated 20.7.2022, issued by the respondent no.3/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti, rejecting the residential patta of the petitioner with respect to gata no.119kha, admeasuring area 1 bigha 7 bishwa and 8 dhoor, situated at village Parashurampur, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti and record for the aforesaid land in the name of gaon sabha. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to restraining them not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the applicant / petitioner over his residential patta land granted and approved in the year 1986 and its house constructed over plot no.119kha, admeasuring area19 dhur, situated at village Parashrampur, Gram Sabha Parashrampur, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti. C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to disturb and interfere in the construction and repair of new house in place of dilapidated kaccha house of the petitioner over the patta land in question."

¶3The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was granted residential lease in the year 1986 in respect to plot no.119-kha, area 19 dhur, situated at village Parashrampur, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti. The proceeding for cancellation of petitioner's lease has been initiated in the year 2022, under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which has been registered as Case No.D202217140001242, under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Collector, Basti. It is further alleged that illegal interference was made with respect to the plot in dispute of the petitioner, as such, Writ C No.22558/2022 was filed at the instance of the petitioner before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 8.9.2022 with the direction that if petitioner carries out any repair work over the plot in dispute, then respondent shall not make any interference with the same as the petitioner is the valid patta holder of plot no.119-kha, area 19 dhur. Again, interference was made with respect to the plot in dispute. Hence, this writ petition.

¶4Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is valid patta holder of the plot in dispute and the same has not been cancelled even after expiry of more than 30 years. He further submitted that proceeding under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated in respect to the petitioner's lease which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law in view of the provisions contained under the U.P. Revenue Code and the Rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that proceeding of the notice dated 20.7.2022 be quashed and mandamus be issued, restraining the other side from interferring with the possession of the petitioner's lease granted in accordance with law in the year 1992.

¶5On the other hand, Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned Addl. C.S.C. and Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha submitted that proceeding for cancellation of lease is pending before the Collector, Basti, as such, no interference is required in the matter. They further submitted that petitioner should participate in the pending proceeding and can apply for interim relief in the pending proceeding rather the instant writ petition before this Court.

¶6I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶7There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner was granted residential lease in the year 1986 which was approved in accordance with law. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner is in possession of the plot in dispute.

¶8In order to appreciate the controversy, the earlier order passed by this court on 8.9.2022 in Writ C No.22558/2022 will be relevant for perusal which is quoted hereunder:- "Instructions filed today be kept on record. The petitioner claims to have been in possession over plot no. 119Kha measuring 19 dhur in Village-Gram Sabha Parashrampur, Tehsil-Haraiya, District-Basti, because of patta, which was granted in her favour on 19.7.1993. The case of the petitioner is that in the last two years, when she was trying to make certain repairs in the house constructed over the land, which was granted to her by the State, the respondent no.5/ the Halka Lekhpal Sri Anurag Patel started interfering with her working and restrained her from continuing with the repair work. When the instant writ petition was filed, instructions were called for and in the instructions, specifically, it has been stated as follows: "Purva nirmit makaan ka ek bhhag chhatigrast ho gaya hai. Ek bhaag mein apne putron evam putravadhu ke saath rah rahi hai. Koi vivad pichhle 30 varshon se nahin aya jaisa ki sthaleeya jaanch ke dauran upasthit vyaktiyon ne bataya hai." Learned Standing Counsel has also made a categorical statement in the Court that no interference whatsoever, is being done with the petitioner's repairing work. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner carries out any repair work, then the respondents shall not in any manner interfere in the same."

¶9The instruction of the S.D.O., Harraiya, District dated 9.9.2023 will also be relevant which is as under:- स्थललीय ननिरली्ቌण मम पपायपा गयपा नकि।

¶1ससंततू पपु्ቔ बपाबतूलपाल 0.036 हहे० भतूनम पर किपानबज हहै।

¶2अनमत किपुमपार, नविकिपास पपु्ቔगण हरली सससंह वि पतूजपा, ज्यपानत, खतूशबतू पपु्ቔलीगण हरलीसससंह किपुल आविसंनटित ्ቌहे्ቔफल 0.119 हहे० मम सहे किहेविल 0.025 हहे० भतूनम पर किब्जपा हहै, शहेष भपाग मम जल भरपावि किकी सस्थनत हहै।

3.सपुशलीलपा दहेविली पत्निली मथपुरपा ्ቚसपाद किपा स्थल पर आबपादली किहे रूप मम 0.012 हहे० भतूनम पर किपानबज हहै।

¶4इसली आरपाजली किहे आसंनशकि भपाग पर असखलहेश ्ቚतपाप सससंह पपु्ቔ ्ቚभपुनिपाथ सससंह ननिविपासली सपानकिनि 7/302 मलहपार डलीलक्स सहपारपा गहेस जपानिकिकीपपुरम लखनिऊ दपारपा दलीविपाल बनिपाकिर वि नमटली पपाटिकिर अविहैध किब्जपा नकियपा हहै, सजस पर धपारपा 67(1) किहे तहत किपायरविपाहली किकी जपा चपुकिकी हहै , सजसकिपा मपुकिदमपा निम्बर 202317140109160 T हहै, सजसमम सपुनिविपाई हहेतपु नदनिपासंकि 22.09.2023 नतसथ ननियत हहै।

¶5उ्ሹ गपाटिहे किहे शहेष ्ቌहे्ቔफल मम जल भरपावि किकी सस्थनत हहै। इस सम्बन्ध मम निपायब तहसलीलदपार किकी आख्यपा नदनिपासंकि 09.09.2023 गपाटिपा ससंख्यपा 119 किपा स्थललीय भतूनच्ቔ वि स्पपाटि महेममो तथपा स्थललीय फमोटिमोगपाफ ससंल्ሿकि 2,3,4 वि 5 किहे रूप मम सपादर अविलमोकिनिपाथर ससंल्ሿ हहै।

¶4यह नकि मपा० उच्च न्यपायपालय किमो सपादर अविगत किरपानिपा हहै नकि गपाटिपा ससंख्यपा 119 ख नम० किहे रकिबपा 0.030 हहे० पर अविहैध रूप सहे नकियहे गयहे स्थपायली बपाउडडलीविपाल ननिमपारण किहे नविरु्ቍ न्यपायपालय तहसलीलदपार (न्यपानयकि) हररयपा-बस्तली किहे न्यपायपालय मम उ०्ቚ० रपाजस्वि ससंनहतपा 2006 किकी धपारपा 67(1) किहे अन्तगरत ननियमपानिपुसपार विपाद ससंख्यपा 9160/2023 किम्प्यतूटिरलीकिकत विपाद ससंख्यपा 202317140109160 T गपााመवि सभपा बनिपाम असखलहेश ्ቚतपाप सससंह ससंसस्थत किरतहे हहए ननियमपानिपुसपार अविहैध किब्जहेदपार किमो सपुनिविपाई किपा समपुनचत अविसर नदयहे जपानिहे किहे उदहेश्य निमोनटिस जपारली किकी गई हहै तथपा विपाद मम सपुनिविपाई हहेतपु अनगम नतसथ

22.09.2023 ननियत हहै। इस सम्बन्ध मम न्यपायपालय तहसलीलदपार न्यपानयकि किहे न्यपायपालय मम ससंसस्थत विपाद किपा सपारपासंश प्ቔ ससंल्ሿ 06 किहे रूप मम सपादर अविलमोकिनिपाथर ससंल्ሿ हहै। अततः मपा० उच्च न्यपायपालय दपारपा पपाररत आदहेश नदनिपासंकि 24.08.2023 किहे अनिपुपपालनि मम ्ቚकिरण सहे सम्बसन्धत ससंन्ቌ्቎ अनिपुदहेश सपादर ्ቚहेनषत हहै।

¶10A perusal of the instruction submitted by the S.D.O. as well as the order granted by this Court in earlier Writ C No.22558/2022 including the initiation of proceeding under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the interest of justice requires that the instant petition be disposed of, directing the Collector, Basti to decide the pending Case No.D202217140001242, under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in accordance with law and till the disposal of the pending case, no interference be made with the petitioner's possession in respect to plot no. 119-kha, area 19 dhur.

¶11Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant writ petition stands disposed of, directing respondent no.2/Collector, Basti to conclude the proceeding of aforementioned case under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order, in accordance with law. It is further directed that till the disposal of the aforementioned case, no interference shall be made with the possession of the petitioners in respect to plot no.119-kha, area 19 dhur, which was allotted to the petitioner in 1986. Order Date :- 16.10.2023 C.Prakash High Court of Judicature at Allahabad