Back
RAJEEV MISRA
Hari Om – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Misra, J.
Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing Respondent 5, Land Management Committee.
2. Perused the record.
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by Respondent 4, Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Dadari, District-Gautam Budh Nagar in Case No. 6066 of 2023 (LMC v. Hari Om), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) as well as the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by Respondent 2, Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Gautam Budh Nagar in Appeal No. 521 of 2023 (Hari Om v. Noida Industrial Development Authority), under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) whereby aforementioned appeal filed by petitioner against order dated 06.04.2023 has been dismissed.
4. Record shows that the Halka Lekhpal submitted the report (RC Form-19) alleging therein that petitioner-Hari Om has illegally encroached upon Survey Plot No. 493 area 1.0250 hectares. On the basis of aforesaid report, a case under Secti
Eviction upheld for illegal encroachment on public utility land, but damages quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory calculation procedures.
The court affirmed the eviction order but quashed the damages due to lack of conclusive evidence and procedural irregularities in the assessment of damages.
Damages awarded for illegal possession must be substantiated by evidence; failure to prove the Halka Lekhpal's report renders the damages arbitrary.
No rights can accrue over public utility land based on long possession; damages must be calculated according to established rules.
Possession of public utility land does not confer rights; damages must be calculated according to legal standards.
Authorities must adhere to statutory provisions and consider beneficial legislation in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including providing notice and opportunity to be heard, failing which decisions are invalid.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including the right to be heard and the requirement for evidence to be properly substantiated.
Eviction upheld for illegal possession of public land, but damages quashed due to lack of justification and procedural errors by the appellate authority.
Eviction orders under the U.P. Revenue Code require measurement and demarcation to establish illegal possession; failure to do so renders such orders unsustainable.
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
