Upendra Singh vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2516

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2516

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Upendra Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And 3 Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 1731 OF 2023.
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Akhilesh Kumar
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Avinash Chandra Srivastava

Headnote:(A) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 67(1) and 67(5) - Proceedings initiated against petitioner for ejectment - Impugned orders quashed due to lack of opportunity for hearing, and the approach of authorities deemed arbitrary - Need for transparency and adherence to established procedures highlighted. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 7, 9)

(B) Ejectment proceedings - Authorities must ensure fair opportunity of hearing and consider the merits of the case before passing orders of ejectment - The importance of statutory protection and the need for timely resolution emphasized. (Paras 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, belonging to Scheduled Castes, has resided on the plot for over 50 years. He was subjected to ejectment proceedings without a hearing, following an ex-parte order.

Findings of Court:
The orders for ejectment and damages were set aside due to the lack of consideration for the petitioner's case and the procedure followed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was given an adequate opportunity for hearing and if the appellate court's upholding of the order was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that ejectment proceedings must involve adequate opportunity for hearing and proper evaluation of circumstances, referring to established guidelines in prior judgments.

Result: Writ petition allowed in part; orders set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's case for quashing orders. (Para 2 , 3)
2. respondents' defense of legality of orders. (Para 4 , 6)
3. court's observation on lack of due process. (Para 5 , 7 , 8)
4. guidelines established for fair proceedings. (Para 9)
5. decision to set aside previous orders and remand case. (Para 10)

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 argued before the Appeal Court. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Castes community and constructed the house about 50 years before. He further submitted that there is no any other accommodation available for the petitioner, as such, the order for ejectment and damages will cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. He further submitted that area of the plot No. 122 over the petitioner is in possession and raised construction is 100 square meter which can be settled in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that impugned orders have been passed in ex-parte manner, as such, the impugned order be set aside and matter be sent back to the authority to reconsider the petitioner's case in accordance with the provisions contained under the U.P. Revenue Code and the Rules framed thereunder.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and Counsel for the Land Management Committee submitted that impugned orders for ejectment have been passed in accordance with law. He further submitted that petitioner has not appeared before the Court of Tehsildar, as such, the order was passed in accordance with law. He further submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated against the petitioner and order for ejectment and damages has been passed. There is also no dispute about the fact that restoration application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Tehsildar and the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

7. Since the petitioner is in possession of the plot for more than 50 years and the area of the plot is about 100 square meter, as such, the order for ejectment and damages passed by the Tehsildar in the proceeding under Section 67 (1) without considering the case of the petitioner will cause irreparable injury to the petitioner.

8. The order passed by the Tehsildar demonstrate that petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing before passing of the order of ejectment and damages against him. The Appellate Court has also maintained the order without considering the case of the petitioner.

9. This Court in the case reported in 2023 (1) ADJ 154 Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others has considered the scope of