IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Asgar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others – Respondents
Writ C.No.4773 of 2021
Decided on : 06-08-2021
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 67 - Petitioner claim - Parcel of land after imposing damages and other charges - Petitioner for protection Code and rights purportedly accruing to him there appellate court held that it was open to petitioner to take out proceedings of Code for grant of appropriate relief as claimed by him- After noticing aforesaid appellate court agreed with judgment of trial court and dismissed appeal trial court did not return any finding on this issue –Held, Case at hand appellate court notices that petitioner had specifically contended that his house was standing on disputed parcel of land and he was entitled to protection Code trial court neglected to return a specific finding on this critical aspect while proceeding to determine issue finally - Appellate court misdirected itself in lay by holding that it was open to petitioner to take out a fresh proceeding law- No fresh proceedings are liable to be taken out in case as stated earlier courts in proceedings under are obligation of law to decide eligibility of notice for protection Code in case such defence is tendered by notice said proceedings shall be registered separately- But both cases will be consolidated and heard and decided together - Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. By the impugned order dated 30.10.2019 the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector First Division has lodged the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code'.) has directed the eviction of the petitioner from disputed parcel of land after imposing damages and other charges. The petitioner fared no better before the appellate court which by the impugned order dated 14.10.2020 has affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance and rejected his appeal.
2. The proceedings for eviction of the petitioner under Section 67 of the Code for illegally encroaching upon gram panchayat land were taken out by issuance of a show cause notice and registering Case No. 59 of 2019 Computerized Case No. 201909550101867. The petitioner tendered a reply to the show cause notice stating that he had erected his house on the disputed parcel of land. It is the sole dwelling unit of his family. Similar objections were taken by the petitioner before the appellate authority in the memo of appeal. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 67 (a) Code.
3. Adverting to the eligibility of the petitioner for protection under Section 67 (a) of the Code and the rights purportedly accruing to him thereunder, the appellate court held that it was open to the petitioner to take out proceedings under Section 67 (a) of the Code for grant of appropriate relief as claimed by him. After noticing the aforesaid facts, the appellate court agreed with the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The trial court did not return any finding on this issue.
4. Section 67 as well as Section 67(a) of the Code reflect the composite intent of legislature. The legislature by enacting the aforesaid provision has recognized the vulnerability of the State land to illegal encroachment and the need for urgent corrective measures. Simultaneously the legislature has also acknowledged the reality of a large number of persons who have erected dwelling units on lands which are not reserved for any public purposes. The legislature has protected their rights in the manner prescribed in the provision. For ease of reference the provisions are extracted hereunder:
(2) Where from the information received under sub-section (1) or otherwise, the Assistant Collector is satisfied that any property referred to in sub-section (1) has been damaged or misappropriated, or any person is in occupation of any land referred to in that subsection in contravention of the provisions of this Code, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation not exceeding the amount specified in the notice be not recovered from him and why he should not be evicted from such land.
(3) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under sub-section (2) fails to show cause within the time specified in the notice or within such extended time as the Assistant Collector may allow in this behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be insufficient, the Assistant Collector may direct that such person shall be evicted from the land, and may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary, and may direct that the amount of compensation for damage or 34 misappropriation of the property or for wrongful occupation, as the
Point of Law : If an Authority/Court sets aside the order on technical grounds then the matter may be remanded back to the Authority.
Point of Law : Any person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Collector under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), may within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Collec....
The court reinforced that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction in matters of land encroachment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.