IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 226 of 2004 (M/S) Shobha Ram S/o Chatar, R/o Vilage Niranjanpur, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal through Collector Haridwar, District Haridwar and another. ….. Respondents. Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent. Date: - November 18, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.3.2004 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition) passed by the Collector, Haridwar. The petitioner has filed objection before the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector wherein it has been stated that the land in dispute which has been mentioned in 49-A, is part of the plot No. 96 which belonged to this predecessor and it has further been stated that he has no concern with the plot no. 90. On behalf of the Gaon Sabha, the lekhpal of the concerned village was examined to prove the fact that the land in dispute belonged to Gaon Sabha. The respondent has also examined himself before the Tehsildar, and has stated that the shops were constructed in his own abadi land and it is an ancestral property. After hearing the petitioner as well as the Gaon Sabha, learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, vide order dated 2.7.2002, has quashed the notice 49 A which was issued against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s claim is based on old abadi. Aggrieved by the order the Gaon Sabha preferred revision no. 52 of 2002 under Section 122 B(4)(A) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After hearing both the parties, the learned Collector has allowed the revision filed by the Gaon Sabha and set aside the order of Assistant Collector/Tehsildar dated 2.7.2002 and it has been held that the petitioner had constructed the shops in plot no. 90 which is recorded in clause 6 as ‘sarak kham’ which was reserved during the consolidation proceeding for public purpose. And it has also been held that no right accrued to the petitioner on Gaon Sabha land, and the petitioner has also admitted that three shops were constructed and the learned Trial Court has fell into error in holding that the shops are situated in old abadi, and the finding of the Tehsildar based on the spot inspection could not be sustained in the absence of inspection memo. The land was reserved for public purpose during the consolidation proceeding and the petitioner has not established the fact that he or his predecessors were in possession of the land before the Z.A. Act came into force. The Trial Court passed the order to evict the petitioner from the land of road which was reserved in the year 1962 during the consolidation proceeding and the shops were unauthorisedly constructed thereafter in the year 1407 fasali. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner encroached the land of plot no. 90 by constructing three shops illegally and the land of plot no. 90 is a public utility land and is recorded in class 6 as road in revenue record and it has further been stated that the petitioner himself stated in his objection that he has not made any construction of shops in plot no. 90 of the said village. The plot no. 90 belongs to Gaon Sabha and the eviction order was rightly passed by the Collector. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. This fact is not disputed that the plot no. 90 is recorded as ‘Sarak Kham’, which was recorded in the consolidation proceedings for the public purpose. The learned Revisional Court came to the conclusion that the shops, which were constructed by the petitioner, are not an old abadi. The finding of Tehsildar was rightly set aside on the ground that in 1407 F the petitioner encroached the part of the land of plot no. 90 which is a public utility land and it is held that the possession of the petitioner is not proved prior to coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The order of the Collector is based on the cogent evidence on record and the learned Collector has rightly set aside the order on the ground that while making spot inspection, the Tehsildar did not prepared the memo of inspection and did not disclose when the shops were constructed on the land in dispute while the concerned Lekhpal of the village has stated on oath that shops were constructed in plot no. 90 which is a public utility land and was reserved for ‘Sarak’. I find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Collector and so far as the possession part is concerned, the ends of justice, would be subserved if the compensation is imposed Rs. 10,000/- against the petitioner instead of Rs. 90,000/-. The writ petition is devoid of merit so far as the eviction part is concerned and is liable to be partly allowed. So far it relates to compensation part, the petitioner shall pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 90,000/- as imposed by the learned Collector. The writ petition is partly allowed. The eviction part of the impugned Judgment is upheld. Interim order dated 1.4.2004 stands vacated. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) Dated: 18.11.2008 RMY