Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shailendra Singh.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Arun Kumar Pandey.

The ratio of the judgement primarily revolves around the procedural safeguards and the requirement of adherence to proper legal procedures while conducting proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and related rules. The Court emphasizes that the proceedings must be initiated based on a detailed, on-site spot inspection report prepared with participation of the concerned parties, including the person alleged to be in unauthorized occupation. The report must be corroborated by a proper survey, measurement, and a spot memo signed by all relevant officials and the person concerned, ensuring transparency and fairness (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the Court underscores that the order passed without following the prescribed procedure, particularly in the absence of a proper, on-the-spot inquiry and participation, is liable to be set aside. The proceedings must be conducted within a time-bound manner, and the decision must be based on a comprehensive, evidence-based inquiry that respects principles of natural justice. The Court also highlights the importance of considering statutory protections, such as those under Section 67-A, during the proceedings, and that these protections should be examined concurrently to avoid multiplicity of litigation (!) (!) (!) .

In essence, the judgement establishes that the procedure for eviction or action under Sections 67, 67-A, and 26 of the Revenue Code must be transparent, participatory, and based on a proper inquiry process, including on-site verification, before any final order is passed. Orders passed in violation of these procedural requirements are liable to be quashed, and the authorities are directed to re-examine cases with due adherence to the prescribed procedures, ensuring fairness and preventing arbitrariness (!) (!) (!) .