Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
SUMITRA - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF U.P. - Respondent
Writ-C No. 15094 of 2018
Decided on : 26-04-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Rajendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:C.S.C. and Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate
The central legal point established is the authority's power to use force and lodge an FIR under Section 65 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to address illegal occupation of land.
Headnote:
possession - land dispute - The court directed the authority to take recourse of the provisions under Section 65 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to address the illegal occupation of land and allowed for lodging an FIR if the encroachers did not vacate the land within two weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction to ensure possession of land allotted to him, which was illegally occupied by others. The court noted that the authorities had earlier evicted the illegal occupants but they had reoccupied the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the authority to take action under Section 65 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and allowed for lodging an FIR if the encroachers did not vacate the land within two weeks.
Issues: Dispute over possession of land, illegal occupation, enforcement of possession rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 65 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to address the illegal occupation of land and emphasized the authority's power to use force and lodge an FIR if necessary.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the authority to take action under Section 65 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and to lodge an FIR if the encroachers did not vacate the land within two weeks.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents. Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav has accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to private respondents.
3. The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to the respondents to give and ensure possession of land Arazi No.633 area 0.0890 hect., which is allotted to the petitioner by the Land Management Committee (LMC) of the aforesaid village by way of Patta under the UPZA & LR Act and the same has also been approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) and the possession of which has also been earlier given to the petitioner.
4. It is also alleged that fifth and sixth respondent namely Raj Kumar and Sheo Shankar both sons of late Kanhai Yadav had illegally and forcibly evicted the petitioner from the land in question. Thereafter, the petitioner moved detailed representation to the SDM on 22.4.2016. Admittedly on the said representation report was asked for but actually on spot no action was taken by the respondents. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.55968 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2017 asking the SDM concerned to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law within one month. In response to the aforesaid direction admittedly the competent authority had passed order on 11.3.2018 appended as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition, wherein it is clearly averred that the possession in question was handed over to the petitioner on 11.3.2018 evicting the illegal occupants from the property in question namely Sheo Shankar and Raj Kumar sons of Kanhai Yadav. It is alleged that thereafter again on 20.03.2018 the aforesaid persons have dispossessed the petitioner and occupied the land in question and as such this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel very fairly states that for the grievance raised in the writ petition full fledged mechanism is provided in Section 65 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code"). Section 129 relates to restoration of possession to allottee or the Government lessee and provides that where any person is admitted to any land in accordance with Section 125, or where any land is let out to any person by the State Government and any person, other than the allottee or lessee, is in occupation of such land in contravention of the provisions of this Code, the Assistant Collector may, of his own motion, and shall, on the application of the allottee or the lessee, as the case may be, put him in possession of such land, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as he considers necessary. Sub-section (2) of Section 129 provides that the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (8) of Section 65 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to reoccupation of any land or part thereof after possession has been delivered under sub-section (1).
6. The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as Section 65 of the Code, which talks about the delivery of possession to allottee. Sub-section (2) of Section 65 provides that where any person, after being evicted under this section, reoccupies the land or any part thereof, without lawful authority, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years but which shall not be less than three months and also with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees. This is admitted situation that the aforesaid writ petition has been disposed of by this Court asking the SDM to take appropriate action in the matter and admittedly as per order dated 11.3.2018 this much is reflected that on spot the revenue officials has taken recourse of the aforesaid provisions and illegal occupants were evicted from the land in question. In such circumstances, once a complaint is bei
