Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
Mahadev Singh Dal Bahadur Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue), Lko. and Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 9984 of 2023
Decided On : 09-11-2023
U.P. Revenue Code-2006 - Eviction from Gram Panchayat property - Section 67 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 provides for eviction from Gram Panchayat property and the procedure to be followed in such cases. The court also referred to the guidelines issued in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, which outlined the procedure to be applied to proceedings under Sections 67, 67A, and 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 for eviction from a disputed land recorded as a pond but claimed to be residential. The petitioner alleged that the orders were passed without affording proper opportunity and following prescribed procedures.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were passed after affording opportunity to the petitioner and were in accordance with the law. The court also noted the admission of the petitioner regarding the construction of a house on the recorded pond, indicating illegal encroachment.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of the orders passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006, the petitioner's claim of residential use of the disputed land, and the alleged lack of proper procedure followed in the eviction process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admission of the petitioner regarding the encroachment on the recorded pond, the provisions of Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006, and the guidelines issued in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others to support its decision.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found that the impugned orders were passed in accordance with the law and after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The court also emphasized that the petitioner's pleas were not tenable in the eyes of the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Tushar Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Ravindra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 21.05.2022 passed in Case No.86 of 2022 under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 (here-in-after referred as Code2006) by the Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector (First Class), Gauriganj, District-Amethi/ respondent no.3 and the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Collector, District-Amethi/ respondent no.2 in Appeal No.525 of 2022 under Section 67(5) of Code-2006.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 21.05.2022 has been passed in a haste manner without affording opportunity to the petitioner and following the procedure as prescribed by this Court in Writ-C No.6658 of 2022 (Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 829 on the ground that the case was registered under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code on 12.01.2022 and the notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.05.2022 and the impugned order was passed on 21.05.2022. He further submits that the land in dispute i.e. Gata No.166 Min/0.025 hec., though recorded as Talab (pond), is not in the shape of Talab (pond) and residential. The name of the petitioner is recorded on Gata No.165, which is adjacent to the said Gata and in case the opportunity would have been afforded, the petitioner could have claimed exchange from his land i.e. Gata No.165, therefore the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. The grounds taken by the petitioner in the appeal have also not been considered and the appeal has been dismissed. Thus, the submission is that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the show cause notice, in which he had admitted that the land in dispute is recorded as Talab (pond), though he claimed that his house is built on the said land which is in the shape of Abadi (residential). A contradictory objection has been taken in paragraph-5 of the objection that he has not made any encroachment on the land of pond and is residing in his ancestral house and the report has been submitted without spot inspection. The opportunity of cross-examination with the Lekhpal was also afforded to the petitioner, which was made by the petitioner on 08.05.2022, in which the Lekhpal has specifically stated that he had made the inspection, in which he had found that the petitioner has constructed the house on Gata No.166/ area 0.025 hec. situated in Village-Jagdishpur. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 21.05.2022 has been passed without affording opportunity to the petitioner is misconceived and not tenable. The appeal has also been dismissed, after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. Even otherwise, there is admission by the petitioner that he is having house on the recorded pond, which is adjacent to his ancestral land. Thus the impugned orders have rightly been passed in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner and there is no illegality or error in the impugned order. The petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed with cost.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records placed on record with this petition.
6. On the basis of a report of Lekhpal, a case under Section 67 of the Code-2006 for eviction from Gata No.166/0.025 hec. of Village-Jagdishpur, Pargana-Amethi, Tehsil-Gauriganj, District-Amethi and damages was registered. Admittedly a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and served on him. In response thereof, the pet
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....
Eviction orders under the U.P. Revenue Code require measurement and demarcation to establish illegal possession; failure to do so renders such orders unsustainable.
All State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these must be restored to ....
The court ruled that revenue authorities must diligently evaluate evidence and properly calculate damages in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including the right to be heard and the requirement for evidence to be properly substantiated.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including providing notice and opportunity to be heard, failing which decisions are invalid.
Authorities must adhere to statutory provisions and consider beneficial legislation in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Eviction proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code cannot proceed without proper land demarcation, and damages awarded must be based on a justified assessment.
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
