Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Ghanshyam Verma and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Misc. Single No. 13312 of 2021
Decided On : 30-06-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Writ petition – Writ of mandamus - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 67, 67(2), (3), (4), (5) - To get the land in dispute vacated from illegal occupation of the private opposite parties – Appeal rejected saying petitioner is not a party in the proceedings - Whether an appeal filed against the order of Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, under Section 67(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, is maintainable at the instance of a person if he is not a party in the proceedings, but is aggrieved.
Finding of the court: Section 67(5) of the Code, 2006 states that if any person is aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Collector under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), he may within thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal before the Collector. This uses the expression, any person aggrieved and not any party aggrieved - The words ‘person aggrieved’ do not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made - A ‘person aggrieved’ must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something.” - Appeal filed by the petitioners was maintainable and has illegally been dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the petitioners were not party in the proceedings.
Result: Petition partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Shri Subodh Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Krishna Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri Mohan Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 4-Gaon Sabha/Gram Panchayat, Dadwa, Imliya Yarki, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, through video conferencing.
2. For the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private opposite party No. 5 is hereby dispensed with, but his interest would be secured.
3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the Assistant Collector-First Class/Tehsildar, Akbarpur, Ambedkar Nagar, by which the notice/R.C. Form-20, issued to the opposite party No. 5 in the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been withdrawn. Against the said order the petitioners filed an appeal which has also been dismissed by the District Magistrate/ Collector, Ambedkar Nagar by the order dated 27.01.2021 as not maintainable, which is also under challenge.
4. The dispute pertains to an area of 04 Biswa/0.051 hectare of Gata No. 2123, situated at Village Yarki Dadwa, Post Yarki, Pargana/Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, said to be the Gaon Sabha land recorded as Naveen Parti, and allegedly occupied illegally by the opposite party No. 5.
5. Some of the petitioners, previously, filed Petition No. 35328 (MS) of 2018, Shakuntala Verma and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 1 to 5 therein to get the land in dispute vacated from illegal occupation of the private opposite parties. In the said petition the learned Standing Counsel informed the Court that the appropriate proceedings under Section 67(1) of U.P. Revenue Code had been initiated against the encroachers and consequently the petition was disposed of with the observations and directions that the proceedings so initiated for removal of illegal encroachment shall be finalized in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned by the competent authority, expeditiously, keeping in mind the statutory period prescribed for disposal of such cases under the U.P. Revenue Code. Thereafter, by the order dated 04.11.2019 the notice issued to the opposite party No. 5 was withdrawn by the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, against which the petitioners filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by the order dated 27.01.2021.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' appeal has been dismissed only on the ground that the appeal at the instance of the petitioners was not maintainable, as the petitioners were not the party in the proceedings before the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector First Class. His submission is that the land in dispute is Gaon Sabha land and the petitioners being resident of the same Gaon Sabha have interest in the land of Gaon Sabha. In case of encroachment over Gaon Sabha land the petitioners being aggrieved from the order of the Tehsildar, have a right to maintain the appeal, particularly when Section 67(5) of the Revenue Code, 2006 provides for the appeal by the persons aggrieved from the order passed by the Tehsildar. The order withdrawing the notice issued to the opposite party No. 5, who has encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land causes injury to the petitioners who are the persons aggrieved.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appellate authority in rejecting the petitioners' appeal, as not maintainable, has placed reliance on para-12 of the Appendix-II of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, and has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Gram Sabha Gooma Fatima Jot vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Balrampur and Others, 2020 (146) R.D. 512 (HC), but those provisions as also the case law are not applicable.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitte
SupremeToday
Point of law: A bare reading of sub-section (5) shows that any ‘person’ may be the ‘party’ or may not be a party can maintain an appeal if he is aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Collector un....
A complainant may maintain a writ petition under Section 67 (5) of the UP Revenue Code if they are aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal, but the merits of the case must support their claims for....
Eviction orders under the U.P. Revenue Code require measurement and demarcation to establish illegal possession; failure to do so renders such orders unsustainable.
Authorities must adhere to statutory provisions and consider beneficial legislation in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Procedural compliance is essential in eviction proceedings to ensure fairness and transparency, as established by prior judgments.
The court ruled that revenue authorities must diligently evaluate evidence and properly calculate damages in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
The court emphasized that delays in filing appeals should be condoned to ensure substantial justice, overriding technical limitations.
Eviction proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code cannot proceed without proper land demarcation, and damages awarded must be based on a justified assessment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eviction process under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 must adhere to prescribed procedures and afford the concerned party an opp....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
