IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Leellu – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 4745 of 2023
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 67 - U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 - Rule 67 - Seeking quash of order - Unauthorised possession - Alleged unauthorised possession within a period of two days fixing for compliance of notice and to show cause - Notice states that in case objections are not filed against the show cause notice within the aforesaid date and time, case shall be decided ex-parte– Held, Court seriously deprecates the conduct who has initiated and concluded proceedings under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within no time i.e. within a period of 11 days from the date of their inception - Writ petition succeeds and is allowed
JUDGMENT :
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Amish Kumar Srivastava along with Ms. Sanju Lata, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents and Shri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
2. The petitioner has made two prayers in the writ petition. The first prayer is for quashing of the order dated 04.01.2023, whereby the Tehsildar concerned has directed eviction of the petitioner in the proceedings under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and also imposed penalty to the extent of Rs. 1,36,600/-. The second prayer is for deciding the restoration application filed by the petitioner on 16.01.2023 seeking recall of the order dated 04.01.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tehsildar, Nakud, Saharanpur issued a notice dated 26.12.2022 in purported exercise of powers under section 67 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 calling upon the petitioner to remove his alleged unauthorised possession within a period of two days fixing 28.12.2022 at 10.00 a.m. for compliance of notice and to show cause. The notice states that in case objections are not filed against the show cause notice within the aforesaid date and time, the case shall be decided ex-parte.
4. The relevant portion of notice dated 26.12.2022 reads as under:
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very next week, the impugned order dated 04.01.2023 has been passed observing that despite service of notice, the petitioner has not made any opposition hence the case proceeded day by day. It is the case of the petitioner that the order dated 04.01.2023 being ex-parte and in violation of the principles of Natural Justice, he immediately preferred a recall application dated 16.01.2023 stating that immediately after having come to know about the order dated 04.01.2023, restoration/recall application is being moved, which should be allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the provisions of section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, sub-sections (2) and (3), whereof read as follows:
(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 sub-section 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 insu
Fairmount Investments Ltd. vs. Secretary to State for Environment
G.B. Mahajan vs. Jalgaon Municipal Council
Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
Rajendra Singh vs. State of M.P. (1996) 5 SCC 460
R. vs. Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ex Parte Hosenball
Supreme Court Employees Welfare Assn. vs. Union of India
State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma
Tata Cellular vs. Union of India
U.P. Financial Corporation vs. Gem Cap (India) (P) Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 299
The principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing, must be observed in administrative proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, particularly regarding orders affecting pro....
The absence of a show cause notice does not invalidate authority action unless prejudice is shown; compliance with assignment conditions for land is crucial.
The impugned notice lacked the basic element of opportunity to the noticee to rebut and defend the allegation imposed against him, and proposed an action to be taken under a non-applicable provision ....
A party cannot raise a technical plea regarding a notice's defect after participating in proceedings without objection; real prejudice must be demonstrated for claims of natural justice violations.
The impugned orders were violative of principles of natural justice, affecting the civil rights of the petitioner, and were therefore quashed and set aside.
Natural justice is context-dependent; its violation must demonstrate actual prejudice to affect the legality of administrative actions like environmental compensation assessment.
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.