Back
Mosque on Village Threshing Floor? Says Evict, But No Fine for Current Users
In a nuanced ruling, the , presided over by Hon'ble Justice Alok Mathur , dismissed a writ petition by Shahban and another against the , upholding an eviction order for a mosque built on land recorded as (threshing floor) under . However, the court quashed the Rs. 36,000 penalty, finding no evidence linking the petitioners—who claimed no management role—to the structure's construction or occupation.
From Prayer Calls to Revenue Notices: The Dispute Unfolds
The controversy centered on Gata No. 648 (0.300 hectares) in Village Asti, Pargana Mohana, Tehsil Bakshi-Ka-Talab, Lucknow, long recorded as . The reported a nearly 20-year encroachment via RC Form 19, complete with a survey map. Tehsildar issued RC Form 20 notice on , prompting petitioners' reply on : the mosque, they said, predated them by 60 years, built for the Muslim community, with no role in its management.
On , the Tehsildar rejected objections, ordering eviction and penalty for wrongful occupation. Appeal to Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) on similar procedural grounds failed on . Petitioners approached the High Court in Writ-C No. 704/2026, arguing violation of , spotlighting a coordinate bench's guidelines in Rishipal Singh vs (Writ-C No. 6658/2022).
Petitioners Cry Foul: 'No Hearing, No !'
Counsel, led by , hammered procedural lapses under Section 67. They invoked
Rishipal Singh
's paras 74-75, mandating spot surveys, witness examination (including Lekhpal),
rights, and timely disposal to curb arbitrariness. Para 51 emphasized evidence appreciation post-witness testimony for
"
."
Absent this— no Lekhpal statement, no state evidence, no cross-exam—the orders merited quashing.
State's Firm Reply: 'Summary Rules Suffice, Guidelines Optional'
countered: proceedings are summary per and , decided on affidavits unless cross-exam deemed necessary. Rules 66-67 were followed—Form 19 report, Form 20 notice, reply considered, revenue records uncontroverted showing ownership. Rishipal 's "guidelines to be adopted" required state rule amendments, not instant enforcement; courts can't legislate amid existing statutory scheme.
Bench Balances Rules vs Guidelines: Procedure Sacred, Penalty Overreach
Justice Mathur meticulously parsed Rules 66-67: post-Form 19 inquiry (encroachment details verified), Form 20 notice issued, reply deemed "insufficient" sans title proof. Revenue records confirmed status; petitioners showed no right/interest. affirmed affidavit-based summary nature, cross-exam discretionary.
On Rishipal Singh , the court distinguished: guidelines amplified rules but Clause (vi) (mandatory report-prover examination/cross-exam) departed sharply. Unlike (filling legislative vacuum), here rules existed sans declared invalidity. Rishipal urged "adoption" via amendments—unamended, non-binding. Converting summary to ? Legislature's domain.
Yet, penalty fell:
"there was no material to link the petitioners to either construction or occupation of the Mosque the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside."
Key Observations from the Judgment
"From the perusal of the aforesaid material, it is evident that the respondents have followed the Rules prescribed under , and it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed in violation of the said Rules."
"Once the Court itself has issued directions for the 'adoption' of the said guidelines/rules by the , then such adoption is necessary, and without such adoption, the guidelines framed by this Court cannot be implemented."
"The procedure which is prescribed under has been followed in the present case, while it is not mandatory to follow the guidelines issued in the case of Rishipal (supra), unless and until the same are adopted by the "
Eviction Stands, Penalty Lifted: Ripple Effects for Encroachment Fights
Writ dismissed on (Neutral Citation: ), eviction upheld, penalty erased. Petitioners retain civil remedy per to prove title elsewhere. This clarifies: Section 67 proceedings prioritize statutory summary rules; judicial guidelines await formal uptake. For custodians, a win against encroachments; for occupants, reminder—records rule, but penalties demand direct culpability proof. Future cases may see more affidavit-driven efficiency, curbing delays in village land disputes.
