Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Ashok Kumar And 4 Others - Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others - Respondents
WRIT - C NO. - 11014 OF 2023.
Decided On : 10-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's relief requests (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioners allege arbitrary action (Para 3) |
| 3. state's defense on lawful procedure (Para 4) |
| 4. court's review of proceedings (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. guidelines for procedural fairness (Para 7) |
| 6. importance of merit over technicality (Para 8) |
| 7. justice requires fresh examination (Para 9) |
| 8. judgment set aside and remand ordered (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Mr. Pradeep Singh, Counsel for respondent No.4/Gaon Sabha.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated and conducted in arbitrary manner against the petitioners. He further submitted that petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste category and residing in the village since before 17 years. He further submitted that without making proper survey/demarcation of the plot in dispute, order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the petitioners. He submitted that in appeal filed under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with the prayer for condonation of delay has been dismissed in arbitrary manner on the ground of limitation as well as on merit without considering the points set up in appeal for delay condonation as well as on merit. He further submitted that petitioners are in possession of the plot in dispute over which their construction situated but the order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the petitioners without proper consideration of petitioner's case. He further submitted that dismissal of the petitioners' appeal on the ground of limitation is also against the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Collector , Land Acquisition Anantnag and another v. Mst. Kantiji and others reported in A.I.R. 1987 SC 1353 in which it has been held that in place of dismissing the matter on technical ground, matter should be decided on merits. He further placed reliance upon the case reported 2023 (1) ADJ 154, ( Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. & Others) in order to demonstrate that proceeding under section 67 as well as 67(5) of U.P. Revenue C
The court emphasized that delays in filing appeals should be condoned to ensure substantial justice, overriding technical limitations.
Ejectment orders must follow proper procedure, including adequate hearing and survey, and appeals should be decided on merits rather than technical grounds.
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.
Eviction upheld for illegal possession of public land, but damages quashed due to lack of justification and procedural errors by the appellate authority.
Eviction proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code cannot proceed without proper land demarcation, and damages awarded must be based on a justified assessment.
Proper measurement and due process are essential in eviction proceedings, as statutory compliance safeguards against arbitrary actions by the authorities.
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
