SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(All) 1230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Salil Kumar Rai, J.
Mohd. Ubaid and Ors.- Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors.- Respondent
Writ - C No. 5646 of 2020
Decided On : 17-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dev Kumar Mishra and Hari Prasad Pandey
For the Respondents: C.S.C. and Krishna Kant Singh

Headnote:

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 – Sections 24, 67 – Demolish fencing – Present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the Deputy District Magistrate not to demolish the fencing of the petitioners made around their plots. – Held, It is evident that no orders have yet been passed in the proceedings registered under section. 24 of the Code, 2006 at the instance of the petitioners – It is also apparent that no proceedings have yet been registered against the petitioners under section 67 of the Code, 2006. – The present possession of the petitioners cannot be disturbed without any finding that they have encroached over Plot which is a Gaon Sabha plot and no such findings can be recorded without disposing of the proceedings registered under section 24 of the Code, 2006 and in case in the said proceedings, the petitioners are found to have encroached over the Gaon Sabha plot, proceedings under section 67 of, the Code, 2006 would have to be registered against the petitioners for their eviction. – No such proceedings have yet been registered and, therefore, the possession of the petitioners cannot be disturbed merely on a noting made by one of the representatives of the people on an application filed by the villagers. – Petitioners are found to have encroached over Plot, the Assistant Collector shall register proceedings under section 67 of the Code, 2006 against the petitioners and final orders shall be passed by the revenue authorities in the aforesaid proceedings within six months. – It is further directed that if the petitioners are found to be in possession of Plot which is recorded as pond in the revenue records, the revenue authorities, after evicting the petitioners from the same in accordance with law as observed above, shall restore the nature of the plot as recorded in the revenue records. – Writ Petition Disposed of

JUDGMENT :

Salil Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.

In view of the order proposed to be passed, no counter affidavit is being called for and the writ petition is disposed of on the basis of records annexed with the writ petition itself.

2. The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the Deputy District Magistrate not to demolish the fencing of the petitioners made around their plots.

3. A perusal of the records annexed with the writ petition shows that admittedly the petitioners are Bhumidhar of Plot Nos. 801 (area 0.053 hectares) and 802 (area 0.05 hectares). It also appears that Plot No. 1584 which is adjacent to the bhumidhari plots of the petitioners is recorded as Pond in the revenue records. A dispute was raised by certain villagers that the petitioners had encroached over the pond which is a Gaon Sabha plot. It appears that on the aforesaid dispute raised by the villagers, a report was called by the Deputy District Magistrate and the Revenue Inspector-submitted a report dated 1.5.2017 stating that the petitioners had not encroached over the Gaon Sabha plot, i.e., Plot No. 1584 and their fences exist on their own bhumidhari plots. However, the villagers persisted with their objections and tried to get the alleged encroachments made by the petitioners removed from Plot No. 1584. In the circumstances, the petitioners filed an application under section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Code, 2006'). The application was filed on 16.10.2019 and on the said application, reports have been called from the concerned Tehsildar and the Revenue Inspector. The proceedings under section 24 of the Code, 2006 have not yet been finally decided and are still pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer. In the meantime, an application was again filed by certain villagers before the Deputy District Magistrate, Phoolpur, District Prayagraj alleging that the petitioners had encroached over Plot No. 1584 and on the said application, a noting dated 17.12.2019 has been made by one of the elected representatives of the people that the encroachments of the petitioners over Plot No. 1584 be removed with the help of a team consisting of revenue and police officials. The petitioners apprehend that in view of the aforesaid noting dated 17.12.2019, the fence of the petitioners installed over his bhumidhari Plot Nos. 801 and 802 shall be removed and thus, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer as stated above.

4. It is evident that no orders have yet been passed in the proceedings registered under section. 24 of the Code, 2006 at the instance of the petitioners. It is also apparent that no proceedings have yet been registered against the petitioners under section 67 of the Code, 2006. The present possession of the petitioners cannot be disturbed without any finding that they have encroached over Plot No. 1584 which is a Gaon Sabha plot and no such findings can be recorded without disposing of the proceedings registered under section 24 of the Code, 2006 and in case in the said proceedings, the petitioners are found to have encroached over the Gaon Sabha plot, proceedings under section 67 of, the Code, 2006 would have to be registered against the petitioners for their eviction. No such proceedings have yet been registered and, therefore, the possession of the petitioners cannot be disturbed merely on a noting dated 17.12.2019 made by one of the representatives of the people on an application filed by the villagers.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the Deputy District Magistrate, District Prayagraj, UpZiladhikari, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj and the Tehsildar, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj are directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioners without deciding the case registered under section 24 of the Code, 2006 and without registering any case under section 67 of the Code, 2006. It is further directed that the Deputy District Magistrat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top