Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Upendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Dr. Akhilesh Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava for respondent no.4, Land Management Committee.
2. The instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.9.2022 passed by respondent no.2, Additional Collector (Administration), Agra in case No. 02220 of 2021 as well as the orders dated 19.9.2020 and 15.2.2021 passed by respondent no.3 in case No. 3699 of 2019.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated against the petitioner and the order for ejectment and damages has been passed in ex-parte manner. He submitted that against the order for ejectment and damages, petitioner filed a restoration application on 28.11.2020 which was rejected by the Tehsildar vide order dated 15.2.2021 without considering the case set up by the petitioner in the restoration application. He further submitted that appeal filed by petitioner under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has also been dismissed in the arbitrary manner without considering the point set up in the appeal and
Orders of ejectment and damages must adhere to natural justice principles, ensuring proper consideration of objections and conducting necessary surveys before enforcement.
Judicial procedures must ensure proper hearing before ejectment under the U.P. Revenue Code, emphasizing transparency and adherence to statutory guidelines.
Ejectment orders must follow proper procedure, including adequate hearing and survey, and appeals should be decided on merits rather than technical grounds.
The court highlighted the necessity for due process in land disputes, affirming that no demolition should occur pending resolution of restoration applications under the U.P. Revenue Code.
The court emphasized that delays in filing appeals should be condoned to ensure substantial justice, overriding technical limitations.
Eviction upheld for illegal possession of public land, but damages quashed due to lack of justification and procedural errors by the appellate authority.
Procedural fairness is essential in eviction proceedings; failure to address specific grounds in appeals and adhere to established guidelines violates due process.
No rights can accrue over public utility land based on long possession; damages must be calculated according to established rules.
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
