Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Satya Narayan Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Up And Others - Respondent
Writ C. No. 2967 of 2024
Decided On : 31-05-2024
MAINTAINABILITY - Writ Petition under UP Revenue Code - UP Revenue Code, 2006, Section 67 (5) - The court discussed the maintainability of a writ petition filed by a complainant under Section 67 (5) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. It highlighted that the term 'any person aggrieved' allows for appeals by individuals who may not be direct parties to the proceedings but are affected by the outcome. The court interpreted the provisions to affirm that the petitioner, as a member of the Gaon Sabha, had a vested interest in the land and thus could challenge the dismissal of his appeal. However, the court ultimately found that the merits of the case did not support the petitioner's claims, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the District Magistrate which upheld the Tehsildar's decision to drop proceedings against the respondent for alleged illegal occupation of Gaon Sabha land. The petitioner claimed that the respondent had encroached upon the land, while the respondent contended that the constructions were on his own Bhumidhari land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code were dropped based on a report indicating that the constructions were on plot No. 225, not on the Gaon Sabha land in question. The court noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any flaws in the report that justified interference.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the writ petition filed by the complainant was maintainable, given that the appeal against the Tehsildar's order had been dismissed on merits rather than on grounds of maintainability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the petitioner had the right to file a writ petition as a person aggrieved under Section 67 (5) of the UP Revenue Code, the merits of the case did not support the petitioner's claims, as the evidence indicated no encroachment on Gaon Sabha land.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
1. Supplementary Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State respondents, Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel representing the Respondent no. 4 and Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 5.
3. The writ petition has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli, in Case No. 674 of 2023 in Appeal under Section 67 (5) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 whereby and whereunder the Appeal preferred by the petitioner through the Gram Sabha concerned against the order dated 01.07.2023 passed by the Tehsildar, respondent no. 3 has been rejected and the order dated 01.07.2023 dropping the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 against the respondent no. 5 has been upheld.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner is a complainant on whose instance proceedings under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against the respondent no.5. On a report being called on the allegations levelled in the complaint the proceedings under Section 67 were dropped. The Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dropping the proceedings has been rejected.
5. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 that the writ petition at the instance of the complainant petitioner is not maintainable placing reliance upon a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the Case of Rahul Kumar vs. State of UP and others reported in 2023 (9) ADJ 614.
6. The preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition has been repelled by the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the objection is ill founded in as much as petitioner being a member of the Gaon Sabha is vested with the rights to ensure that the Gaon Sabha land is not encroached upon and places reliance upon a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Verma and others vs. State of UP and others reported in 2021 (7) ADJ 67. It is further contended that the Appeal of the petitioner under Section 67 (5) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 has been rejected and the petitioner cannot be rendered remedy less and is certainly within his rights to assail the order passed in the Appeal in a writ petition where no other statutory remedy is provided under the UP Revenue Code, 2006.
7. This Court on 23.05.2024 while recording the submissions of the respective counsels on the question of maintainability of the writ petition prima facie had opined that the writ petition at the instance of the complainant petitioner whose appeal had been decided against him could maintain the writ petition. However, the case was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to bring on record the Memo of the Appeal. The learned Counsels agreed to make their respective submissions on the maintainability of the writ petition on the next date fixed and accordingly the matter is before this Court.
8. Before this Court dwells into the issue of maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner whose status is admittedly that of a complainant, it would be apposite to look into the allegations raised in the complaint against the respondent no. 5.
9. The controversy between the parties is with regard to Arazi No. 227 situate in Mauja Mainur, Patti Chaubisiha, Tehsil-Chakia, District-Chandauli, recorded as 'Kot' in the Revenue Records and is Gram Sabha land. The respondent no. 5 is stated to have illegally occupied the said Gram Sabha land and made temporary constructions over the same. The petitioner is stated to have filed complaint to the revenue authorities apprising them of the illegal encroachment by the respondent
AI
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....
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....
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.
The court ruled that revenue authorities must diligently evaluate evidence and properly calculate damages in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Proper measurement and due process are essential in eviction proceedings, as statutory compliance safeguards against arbitrary actions by the authorities.
Eviction proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code cannot proceed without proper land demarcation, and damages awarded must be based on a justified assessment.
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.
Possession of public utility land does not confer rights; damages must be calculated according to legal standards.
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
