Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJEEV MISRA, J.
Sahabuddin - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And 4 Others - Respondents
WRIT - C NO. - 40152 OF 2023.
Decided On : 07-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Pradeep Kumar,Piyush Patel
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti

Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including providing notice and opportunity to be heard, failing which decisions are invalid.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 67 and 67(5) - Writ petition challenging orders of eviction and damages imposed for illegal possession of public utility land - Proceedings initiated without proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Court finds that the authorities failed to exercise jurisdiction diligently and the orders cannot be sustained. (Paras 9, 17, 19)

(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasizes that judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and not an appeal against the decision itself. (Paras 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the orders of eviction and damages imposed by the Tehsildar and Additional District Magistrate, asserting that the proceedings were based on unproven reports and lacked due process.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the orders were based on material prepared without notice to the petitioner and without proving the reports, thus quashing the impugned orders.

Issues: The main issues were whether the proceedings were conducted fairly and whether the orders of eviction and damages were justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to provide notice and opportunity to the petitioner rendered the proceedings invalid, emphasizing the necessity of due process in administrative actions.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders quashed and matter remitted for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Misra, J.

Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned standing counsel representing respondents 1, to 4 and Mr. Brij Kumar Saroj, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sudhir Bharti, the learned counsel representing respndent-5.

2. Perused the record.

3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by respondent-4, Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil-Sadar, District- Maharajganj in Case No. 929 of 2023 ( Sahabuddin v. State) under Section 67 of U.P. Land Revenue Code 2006 ( Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by respondent-2, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Maharajganj in Appeal No. 929 of 2023 (Shahabuddin v. Gaon Sabha) under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition, whereby the appeal filed by petitioner against order dated 18.02.2023 has been dismissed.

4. Present writ petition came up for admission on 19.01.2024 and this Court passed the following order:

5. Pursuant to above order dated 19.01.2024, the learned standing counsel has received instructions in the matter, Copy of the same has been placed before this Court and the same is taken on record.

6. Record shows that the dispute relates to survey plot o. 149 area 0.295 hectares situate in village-Panchayat-Kotwa, Tappa- Biraicha, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil, Sadar, District-Maharajganj. The Halka Lekhpal submitted his report dated 18.09.2021 (R.C. Form- 19) stating therein that petitioner is in illegal possession and occupation over an area of 0.215 hectares of the land in dispute. Consequently, proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 came to be registered against petitioner in the Court of respondent 4, Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Sadar, District- Maharajganj by way of Case No. 9133 of 2021 (Gaon Sabha v. Sahabuddin) under Section 67- of U.P. Revenue Code 2006.

7. Notice (R.C. Form No. 20) in terms of Section 67(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause why an order of eviction be not passed against petitioner and further why damages be also not imposed against petitioner for causing damage to Gaon Sabha land on account of illegal possession and occupation of Gaon Sabha land. In response to the said notice, the petitioner duly appeared in aforementioned case and filed his objections dated 25.01.2022. Petitioner disputed the contents of the report submitted by Halka Lekhpal and further alleged that he is not in illegal possession or occupation over survey plot no. 149, which is recorded as pond or survey plot no. 271 which is recorded as a road. The house of the petitioner is situate in Abadi (Dih). As such, it was urged on behalf of petitioner that the report submitted by Halka Lekhpal is manifestly incorrect and is liable to be ignored. Consequently proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 200

Click Here to Read the rest of this document