# Sunil Kumar Singh v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 788
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-26
- **Case number:** P.I.L. No. 3287 of 2018
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-49531
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-Section
122-B-Petitioner filed PIL for removal of
encroachment made by respondent no. 5In the present matter, no proceeding has
been undertaken by respondent no. 5 for
exchange of the plot rather respondent
no. 5 is setting tight over the matter- he
has not taken any steps to challenge the
order of ejectment and damages before
Hon'ble Apex Court and has also not taken
any steps for exchange, as such, he is not
entitled
to
the
ratio
laid
down
in
Vishambhar Nath Janta Inter College Case
in which on the ground of pendency of
exchange proceeding it was held that the
order passed in the proceeding under
Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
10 All. Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
789
shall not be implemented till the decision
of the case under section 101 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006-As such authorities
are directed to take action for removal of
encroachment from gaon sabha land in
compliance of the order dated 28.06.2001
passed in the proceeding under section
122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as
maintained by this Court while dismissing
the writ petition.(Para 1 to 22)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
necessity for the slightest departure from
the time- imperative is on the detaining
authority."

51. So far as the quick disposal of
representation of detenue is concerned, it is
revealed from the perusal of the parawise
reply of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 stating
the day to day movement of the file
according to Rules of Business conducted
by the department/authorities concerned.
The reply of opposite party No.2 and 4 also
indicates that there was no laxity in early
disposal of representation of detenue.
Neither any unexplained delay, nor any
laches have been found. The petitioner in
present case has not taken any ground that
his representation dated 05.10.2022 has
been decided by the authorities with
inordinate delay. It has also not been argued
by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the subsequent orders of detention
were having any illegality. The petitioner's
defence in criminal cases in connection
with F.I.R. No.305/21, 306/2022 and 307 of
2022, as mentioned in the grounds of
petition, cannot be considered by us in
present writ petition.

52. The sponsoring authority has
thoroughly examined the proposal of
Superintendent of Police, Hardoi dated
20.09.2022 and by spending sufficient time
and considered all the facts, circumstances,
material collected at different levels and
then passed the detention order by applying
his
mind
and
after
his
subjective
satisfaction. The detenue has been provided
the earliest opportunity to submit his
representation and his representation was
duly considered and expeditiously decided
by the District Magistrate, Hardoi, State
Government, U.P. Advisory Board, and by
Central Government without any undue
delay. The grounds on which the petitioner
has challenged the detention order and are
not according to the established principle of
law. Therefore, we are of the considered
view that the writ petition being devoid of
merit is liable to be dismissed.

53. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 788
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

P.I.L. No. 3287 of 2018

Sunil Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, Sri Sheo Shankar
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, Sri Tariq
Maqbool Khan, Sri Sudhir Bharti, Sri S.N.
Tripathi

A. Civil Law-U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-Section
122-B-Petitioner filed PIL for removal of
encroachment made by respondent no. 5In the present matter, no proceeding has
been undertaken by respondent no. 5 for
exchange of the plot rather respondent
no. 5 is setting tight over the matter- he
has not taken any steps to challenge the
order of ejectment and damages before
Hon'ble Apex Court and has also not taken
any steps for exchange, as such, he is not
entitled
to
the
ratio
laid
down
in
Vishambhar Nath Janta Inter College Case
in which on the ground of pendency of
exchange proceeding it was held that the
order passed in the proceeding under
Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
10 All. Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
789
shall not be implemented till the decision
of the case under section 101 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006-As such authorities
are directed to take action for removal of
encroachment from gaon sabha land in
compliance of the order dated 28.06.2001
passed in the proceeding under section
122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as
maintained by this Court while dismissing
the writ petition.(Para 1 to 22)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Jagpal Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. & ors.
(2011) 113 R.D. 689 SC

2. Jagat Narain & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2015) 127 RD 615

3. Baba Sukkhu Maa Prabhudevi inter College &
anr. Vs St. of U.P. & 4 Ors. (2020) 146 RD 216

4. C/M Vishambhar Nath Janta Inter College &
anr., Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (Writ C No.42710 of
2018)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for
the state-respondents and Mr. Sudhir
Bharti, learned counsel for the respondentgaon sabha. Neither anyone is present on
behalf of respondent nos. 5 & 6 nor any
request has been made on their behalf for
adjournment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plot
no.198 (old no.258), area 0.1780 hect., is
recorded in the name of gaon sabha under
Class 6-2 category land. Proceeding under
Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act,
1950 was initiated against respondent no.5Kedar
Nath
Yadav
Inter
College,
Baghagara, Tahsil, Sadar, Gorakhpur (a
private unaided intermediate college, under
self-financed
scheme).
An
order
for
ejectment and damages has been passed
against respondent no.5 in respect to 44
decimal area of plot no.258 as well as
damages of Rs.11,91,040/- vide order dated
28.6.2001. Respondent no.5 challenged the
order dated 28.6.2001 by way of Revision
No.73 before the Collector which was
dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2001.
Against
orders
dated
28.6.2001
and
23.11.2001, respondent no.5 filed Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.40820 of 2001
before this Court which was initially
entertained in respect to damages part only
but
subsequently
writ
petition
was
dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2014. In
paragraph no.11 of the writ petition, it is
specifically
stated
that
order
dated
23.1.2014, dismissing the writ petition filed
by respondent no.5, has attained finality.
Petitioner made a complaint before the
authorities for the removal of encroachment
over the plot in dispute in pursuance of the
final order passed in the proceeding under
Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act
but no substantial steps have been taken by
the authorities, hence, the instant P.I.L. on
behalf of the petitioner for removal of
encroachment made by respondent no.5
over plot no.198, area 0.1780 hect. as well
as for recovery of amount of damages
awarded against respondent no.5 vide order
dated 28.6.2001 in the proceeding under
Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.
In paragraph nos.3 & 4 of the writ petition,
it is mentioned that petitioner is a social
worker and has been doing several activity
for the welfare and development of the
village as well as to protect the public
property land from grabbing.

3. This Court has entertained the
matter on 12.4.2018 and had directed that if
gaon sabha's land is restored to its original
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shape,
then
it
also
becomes
the
responsibility of the authorities to see that
the school gets a place for functioning so
that the local children do not suffer. Vide
subsequent
orders
dated
19.4.2018/30.4.2018, this Court had further
directed for removal of illegal and
unauthorized occupation from the gaon
sabha's land and the Chief Secretary of the
State was required to come up with a
scheme as has been provided in paragraph
no.22 of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Jagpal Singh and Others vs. State of
Punjab and Others, 2011(113)R.D. 689
(SC) but no scheme has been produced
before this Court in compliance of the
orders
of
this
Court
dated
19.4.2018/30.4.2018.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the judgments of this
Court reported in 2015 (127) RD 615,
Jagat Narain and Others vs. State of U.P.
and Others and reported in 2020 (146) RD
216, Baba Sukkhu Maa Prabhudevi Inter
College and Another vs. State of U.P. and
4 Others in order to demonstrate that gaon
sabha's land cannot be encroached by the
person who has no right and title to occupy
the same.

5. On the other hand, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel and the
counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that
once the order for ejectment and damages
has been maintained by this Court by
dismissing the writ petition filed by
respondent
no.5,
then
there
is
no
justification for respondent no.5 to occupy
the plot in question. They further submitted
that respondent no.5 has not taken any
steps to challenge the order of ejectment
and damages before Hon'ble Apex Court
and has also not taken any steps for
exchange, etc., as such, respondent no. 5 is
not entitled to the ratio of law laid down by
this court in C/M Vishambhar Nath Janta
Inter College and Another vs. State of
U.P. and 4 Others (Writ C No.42710 of
2018) decided on 21.12.2018, in which this
Court, on the ground of pendency of
exchange proceeding, in respect to plot
in question, has held that the order
passed in the proceeding under Section
67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
shall not be implemented till the
decision of the case under Section 101
of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

6. In reply, counsel for the
petitioner submitted that in the instant
matter, no proceeding for exchange is
pending, as such, respondent no.5 is not
entitled to any relief in the matter. He
further submitted that institution is a
private unaided intermediate college, as
such, no relief can be granted to
respondent nos. 5 & 6.

7. Learned standing counsel has filed
two counter affidavits in the matter, 1st
counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent
no.1,
annexing
different
government
orders,
issued
by
the
Government of U.P. in respect to removal
of the encroachment from the land of Gram
Panchayat/public land. The second counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent nos. 2 & 3, stating that the order
for ejectment and damages has been passed
against respondent no.5 which has been
maintained by this Court by means of
dismissing the writ petition and it is also
correct that the institution is running in the
plot in question since 1974 and it has got
two-storyed building in which more than
400 children are taking education, as such,
Tehsildar, Sadar has sent a letter to the
higher authorities for necessary direction in
this regard.
10 All. Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
791

8. Respondent nos. 5 & 6 have filed
their short counter affidavit through Mr.
Satendra
Chandra
Tripathi,
Advocate
stating that petitioner has filed the instant
P.I.L. with malafide intention as petitioner
was initially member of Committee of
Management of Kedar Nath Yadav Junior
School which runs the institution Kedar
Nath
Yadav
Intermediate
College,
Baghagara, Tahsil, Sadar, Gorakhpur and
due to certain dispute, petitioner has filed
the instant P.I.L which is not in public
interest rather a private interest of the
petitioner for extraneous consideration.

9. This matter was listed before this
Court for final disposal on 2.8.2023 and
28.8.2023
when
learned
counsel
for
respondent nos. 5 & 6 was present but on
the subsequent date, i.e. 20.9.2023, counsel
for respondent nos. 5 & 6 was not present
and again when the matter was taken up on
3.10.2023, neither learned counsel for
respondent nos. 5 & 6 was present nor any
request was made on their behalf.

10. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
except learned counsel for respondent nos.
5 & 6 and perused the records.

11. There is no dispute about the fact
that the order for ejectment and damages
has been passed under Section 122-B of the
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act against respondent
no.5 by Tehsildar, which has been
maintained in appeal as well as by this
Court while dismissing the writ petition
filed by respondent no.5 vide order dated
23.1.2014. There is also no dispute about
the fact that respondent no.5 has not
applied for any exchange, etc. as provided
under Section 161 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.
Act, now under Section 101 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006.

12. So far as the maintainability of the
instant P.I.L. is concerned, since the plot in
dispute is recorded as gaon sabha plot and
an order for ejectment and damages has
already been passed by the court concerned
which has been maintained by this Court
while dismissing the writ petition filed by
respondent no.5 on 23.1.2014, hence the
instant P.I.L. cannot be dismissed on the
ground of maintainability as the order for
ejectment and damages has already been
passed about 22 years ago and respondent
no.5 is enjoying the possession without
making any effort to challenge the order
before the Apex Court or taking steps for
exchange, etc., in accordance with law, as
such, the instant P.I.L. is being entertained
on merit, taking into consideration the entry
of the plot in dispute as well as the order
passed by the Tehsildar for ejectment and
damages which has attained finality.

13. The relevant portion of the
judgment passed by Additional Tehsildar
dated 28.6.2001 in the proceeding under
Section 122B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for
the ejectment and damages against the
respondent no.5 are as follows:-

"न्द्यायालय अपर तहसीलिार तहसील सिर, गोरखपुर।
वाि सिंख्या- 54/86 अन्द्तगात िारा 122बी ज०मव०अ० बावत िौजा
बाघागाड़ा तप्पा हवेली परगना भौवापार तहसील सिर मजला गोरखपुर।
गािंव सभा बनाि मवजय प्रताप यािव

िैनें पक्षों के मवद्वान अमिवक्ताओिं की बहस सुनी एिंव पत्रावली पर
उपलब्ि कागजात का भली भािंमत परीक्षण मकया। मजससे स्पष्ट है मक
आ०निं०258 रकबा 44 मड० मस्र्थत िौजा बािागाड़ा पर श्री मवजय प्रताप
यािव का अवैि कब्जा है। श्री यािव के मवद्वान अमिवक्ता का यह तका
स्वीकार नहीं है मक श्री मवजय प्रताप यािव िात्र श्री केिार नार्थ जूमनयर हाई
स्कूल के प्रबिंिक है। और मववामित भूमि पर उनका नहीं बमल्क श्री केिार
नार्थ जूमनयर हाई स्कूल का कब्जा है। यमि उनका यह तका िान भी मलया
जाय तो श्री मवजय प्रताप यािव उक्त मवद्यालय के प्रबिंिक होने के नाते
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
मववामित भूमि के अवैि अध्यासी है। मववामित भूमि के सम्बन्द्ि िें उप
सिंचालक चकबन्द्िी के यहािं जो वाि मवचारािीन है, उससे मववामित भूमि के
स्वत्व के सम्बन्द्ि िें होने से भी आज्ञमपतकताा को कोई लाभ नहीं मिल
सकता है, जब तक मक उक्त वाि िें अमनति मनणाय पाररत नहीं हो जाता है।
आपमत्तकताा के मवद्वान अमिवक्ता द्वारा िाननीय उच्च न्द्यायालय एिंव अन्द्य
जो रूमलिंवस प्रस्तुत की गयी है। उन सभी की मवषय वस्तु प्रश्नगत वाि से
मभन्द्न होने के कारण वे इस वाि पर प्रभावी नहीं है। अतएिंव आपमत्तकताा
द्वारा प्रस्तुत आपमत्त मनरस्त की जाती है तर्था नोमर्स िारा 49(क) की पुमष्ट
की जाती है।
आिेश

आ०निं०-258 रकबा 44 मड० मस्र्थत िौजा बाघागाड़ा तप्पा
हवेली परगना भौवापार तहसील सिर से श्री मवजय प्रताप यािव पुत्र श्री
गिंगा यािव प्रबिंिक श्री केिार नार्थ जूमनयर हाई स्कूल बाघागाड़ा को
बेिखल मकया जाता है। तर्था क्षमतपूमता के रूप िें इनके उपर
11,91,040-00 (वयारह लाख इक्यानबे हजार चामलस रूपये िात्र) का
जुिााना मकया जाता है। तिनुसार क्षमत पूमता की वसूली हेतु नोमर्स 49(च)
जारी हो। क्षमतपूमता की वसूली के पश्चात पत्रावली िामखल िफ्तर की जाय।

 ह०अपठनीय

 28-06-2001

(कुाँवर शमश भूषण मसिंह)

अपर तहसीलिार"

14. The order of Additional Tehsildar
was maintained by collector by dismissing
the revision vide order dated 23.11.2001,
the relevant portion of the order dated
23.11.2001 are as follows:-

"न्द्यायालय कलेक्र्र, गोरखपुर।
मनगरानी सिं० 73 अन्द्तगात िारा 122(4ए) ज०मव०अ० बावत िौजा
बाघागाड़ा तप्पा कस्बा परगना हवेली तहसील सिर जनपि गोरखपुर।

मवजय प्रताप
बनाि गािंव सभा
आिेश

उभयपक्षों के मवद्वान अमिवक्ता को सुना गया तर्था पत्रावली का
अवलोकन मकया गया। पत्रावली पर उपलब्ि साक्ष्यों से स्पष्ट है मक
आ०निं०258/-44 मड० खाता सिंख्या 431 िें वगा 5(1) पिंचायत भवन
हेतु अिंमकत है और िारा 132 के अन्द्तगात सुरमक्षत भूमि है इस भूमि का
आबिंर्न नहीं हो सकता परन्द्तु तत्कालीन िाि प्रिान पलकिारी यािव ने
मनयि मवरूद्ध मिनािंक 6.8.74 को केिारनार्थ यािव जूमनयर हाई स्कूल
बाघागाड़ा के भवन हेतु प्रस्ताव पाररत कर मिया मजसका अनुिोिन
उपमजलामिकारी द्वारा नही हुआ परन्द्तु उक्त कमर्थत प्रस्ताव के आिार पर
मनगरानीकताा मवजय प्रताप यािव ने मववामित भूमि िें एक पक्का किरा
तर्था र्ीनसेड डालकर व्यवसामयक दृमष्टकोण से केिारनार्थ जूमनयर हाईस्कूल
खोलकर चलाने लगे तर्था प्रस्ताव के आिार पर चकबन्द्िी िें िावा प्रस्तुत
करके मिनािंक 30.3.93 को एकपक्षीय गार्ा सिं०-258/0-44 मड० पर
नाि अिंमकत करा मलया मजसके मवरूद्ध गािंव सभा बाघागाड़ा की तरफ से
ब०अ०च० न्द्यायालय िें अपील योमजत की गयी। ब०अ०च० ने साक्ष्यों का
परीक्षण करने के उपरान्द्त मिनािंक 28.4.99 को आिेश पाररत मकया मक
मववामित भूखण्ड गािंव सभा सम्पमत्त है और इस पर मकसी व्यमक्त अर्थाव
सिंस्र्था का नाि अनगाल रूप से िजा नही मकया जा सकता है। ब०अ०च० ने
चकबन्द्िी अमिकारी का आिेश मिनािंक 30.03.93 मनरस्त करते हुए
भूमि पूवावत गािंव सभा के नाि अिंमकत करने का आिेश पाररत मकया है
मजसके मवरूद्ध मनगरानीकताा की तरफ से उप सिंचालक चतबन्द्िी के
न्द्यायालय िें मनगरानी प्रस्तुत की गयी है। इसमलए उक्त मनगरानी के आिार
पर मनगरानीकताा को कोई लाभ नही मिया जा सकता है।

प्रश्नगत प्रकरण िें िुख्य मवचारणीय प्रश्न है मक आया तर्थाकमर्थत
प्रस्ताव मिनािंक 6.8.74 के आिार पर मनगरानीकताा को कोई लाभ मिया
जा सकता है तथ्यों से सपष्ट है मक आ०निं० 258/-44 पिंचायत भवन के
खाते िें अिंमकत है और िारा 132 के अन्द्तगात सुरमक्षत भूमि है। उक्त भूमि
के स्वभाव/नेचर को मबना पररवमतात मकये मकसी भी व्यमक्त/सिंस्र्था के पक्ष िें
आबिंर्न का प्रस्ताव पाररत नही मकया जा सकता है इसी कारण
उपमजलामिकारी द्वारा उक्त प्रस्ताव का अनुिोिन नही मकया गया है, और
तर्थाकमर्थत प्रस्ताव कानून के दृमष्ट िें शून्द्य है। तथ्यों से यह भी स्पष्ट है मक
उक्त तर्थाकमर्थत शून्द्य प्रस्ताव के आिार पर मनगरानीकताा चकबन्द्िी
अमिकारी से अपने पक्ष िें नाि अिंमकत करा मलये र्थे, जो ब०अ०च० के
10 All. Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
793
आिेश मिनािंक 28.4.99 द्वारा मनरस्त हो चुका है। इस प्रकार यह स्पष्ट है
मक आ०निं०-258/-44 मड० पिंचायत भवन बाघागाड़ा के नाि से सुरमक्षत
भूमि है। अवल न्द्यायालय के आिेश िें कोई त्रुमर् नहीं है। अतएिंव आिेश
मिनािंक 28.6.2001 को खमण्डत करने का कोई औमचत्य नहीं है।

अतः मनगरानी बलहीन होने के कारण मनरस्त की जाती है। अवर
न्द्यायालय को पत्रावली वापस भेजी जाय। मनगरानी पत्रावल वाि आवश्यक
कायावाही िामखल िफ्तर हो।

ह०अपठनीय

23.11.2001

िहेश कुिा गुप्ता,

 कलेक्र्र,

 गोरखपुर।"

15. The order dated 23.1.2014
dismissing the Writ C No.- 40820 of 2001
filed by respondent no.5 against the order
dated 28.6.2001 and 23.11.2001 runs as
follows:-

"This case is listed under the category
of 'Infructuous Cases'. Learned Counsel for
the petitioner has not raised any objection
to the listing of the case under the said
Category.

The Office report is accepted. Petition
is accordingly dismissed as infructuous."

16. Inspite of the aforementioned final
orders passed against the respondent no.5,
no steps has been taken by the respondent
no.5 before Hon'ble Apex Court or
initiating
any
other
proceedings
if
permissible under the law.

17. The ratio of law laid down by this
court from time to time in respect to the
controversy involved in the matter will be
relevant for consideration.

18. This Court in the case of Baba
Sukkhu Maa Prabhudevi Inter College
(supra) has maintained the order for
ejectment and damages passed against the
institution inspite of the pendency of the
exchange proceeding. The judgment passed
by this Court in Baba Sukkhu Maa
Prabhudevi Inter College (supra) is
subjudice before the Hon'ble Apex Court in
S.L.P C. No. 28925/2019 in which an order
of status quo is operating till further orders.

19. In the case of Committee of
Management, Vishambhar Nath Janta
Inter College (supra), this Court has held
that order passed in the proceeding under
Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
shall not be implemented till the decision of
the case under Section 101 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, the relevant portion
of the judgment runs as under:-

"However, since the order dated
18.05.2018 has directed the decision of the
application, the Collector shall decide the
same and till the decision on the
application under Section 101 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 is taken orders if are
passed u/s 67 of the Code, should not be
implemented.

The writ petition is allowed."

20. The Division Bench of this Court
in the case of the Jagat Narain (supra) has
decided the reference in respect to
proceeding under Section 122B of U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Act, the relevant Paragraph No.30
of the judgment are as follows:-

"30. For these reasons, we answer the
reference as follows:
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) The law laid down by the learned
Single Judge in the decisions in Ajanta
Udyog Mandal Vidyalay (supra), Budhaee
(supra), Sukhdeo (supra), Kishore Singh
(supra) and Siya Ram (and other decisions
following the same line) do not reflect the
correct position in law and those decisions
are hence overruled;

(ii) A person against whom an order
of eviction has been passed under Section
122-B would not be entitled to a protection
against eviction on the grounds which have
weighed with the learned Single Judges in
the above cases. Once the legislature has,
by enacting a specific provision in subsection (4-F) of Section 122-B, made a
specific statutory provision which overrides
the other preceding sub-sections of Section
122-B, it would not be open for the Court
in the exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, to create a new legislative
category and to issue a mandamus contrary
to law;

(iii) The decision in Sukhdeo (supra)
to the effect that if a person is in possession
for more than 12 years, instead of eviction,
an award of damages would be the
appropriate relief, does not express the
correct position in law. No such
provision
has
been
made
by
the
legislature and it would not be open for
the Court to introduce a new legislative
category or to introduce a period of
limitation as was purported to be done
in the decisions of the learned Single
Judge noted above."

21. In the instant matter, no
proceeding has been undertaken by
respondent no.5 for exchange of the plot
whether permissible or not is another
matter or challenging the order passed by
this Court in the proceeding under Section
122-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act before
Hon'ble the Apex Court rather respondent
no.5 is setting tight over the matter, as
such, there is no option except to allow the
instant P.I.L. and direct the authorities to
take action for removal of encroachment
from the gaon sabha land in compliance of
the final order dated 28.6.2001 passed in
the proceeding under Section 122-B of the
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act as maintained by this
Court while dismissing the writ petition
vide order dated 23.1.2014.

22. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case as well as ratio
laid down by this Court, the instant P.I.L.
is allowed and respondent no.2/Collector,
Gorakhpur is directed to take steps for
removal of the encroachment made by
respondent no.5 from plot no.198 (Old Plot
No.258), area 44 decimal, within a period
of 3 months from the date of production of
the certified copy of the order.

23. Registrar (Compliance) is also
directed to communicate this order to
respondent
no.2/Collector
Gorakhpur
within three days for necessary compliance.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 794
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Rera Appeal No. 28 of 2023
alongwith other connected cases

U.P. State Indus. Dev. Auth., Unnao
 ...Appellant
Versus
Gurmeet Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Kartikey
Dubey