IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6009 OF 2001 (M/S) Teg Singh and others. …..………………Petitioners. Versus Collector, Hardwar and others. ……….Respondents. Heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2. None is present for the respondent no. 3. 21.7.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.8.1992 and 27th July, 1991 passed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 respectively (contained as Annexures No. II and I respectively). 2. Brief facts of the case are that proceedings under section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act were initiated against the petitioners on a report submitted by the Lekhpal, wherein it has been stated that the petitioners have encroached upon Plot No. 246/4 area 0.051 hectares. On the basis of the said report, a notice under Section 49-Ka was issued purporting the petitioners to be under unauthorized occupation of the property in dispute since 1396 Fasli. After receiving the notice, the petitioner filed an objection stating therein that they never occupied any part of the land in question and the notice has been issued on incorrect allegation. Gaon Sabha examined the concerned Lekhpal. In the support of their claim, the petitioners examined Teg Singh, Harnand 2 and Telu, who have stated that the petitioners are not in possession of the land in dispute. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the respondent no. 2 vide judgment dated 25th July, 1991 decided the proceedings against the petitioners directing their dispossession and realization of damages. 4. Being aggrieved from the said order, the petitioner filed a Revision being Revision No. 66 of 1992. The said revision was dismissed by the Collector / District Magistrate, Haridwar on 25.8.1992 affirming the order passed by the court below. 5. Heard counsel for both the parties. 6. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement that the petitioners are not in possession over the land in dispute. 7. In the case of Ram Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1987 R.D. Page 203, it has been observed that when the applicant did not claim possession, the damages should not be imposed upon him/her. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below: “After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners in this case I think no damages should be realized from the 3 petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above. In Hans Raj v. Gaon Sabha (1), a learned Member, Board of Revenue has indicated in his judgment vide para 6 as follows:- “When the applicant did not claim possession damages could not have been imposed on the applicant in view of Rajaswa Anubhag-12 G.O. No. 8639/75-Sa- 12-2384/75, dated September 10, 1975 and Board’s Order No. 11693/G-5-639/73, dated October 22, 1975” 8. Therefore, since, the petitioners are not in possession over the land in dispute as per the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner at Bar, the order passed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 on 25.8.1992 and 27th July, 1991 respectively are affirmed, but the damages / penalty imposed upon petitioner shall not be recovered. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma, J.) 21.7.2008 Rathour