Eviction upheld for illegal encroachment on public utility land, but damages quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory calculation procedures.

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 Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (LMC v. Hari Om) came to be registered in the Court of Respondent 4, Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Dadari, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. Notice dated 25.02.2023 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause. In response to the aforesaid notice dated 25.02.2023, petitioner appeared and filed his objection dated 02.03.2023. Petitioner disputed the contents of the notice by alleging that the said notice is manifestly illegal and contrary to law and facts. On account of above, parties went to trial. In view of the objections raised by the petitioner, Respondent 4, Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Dadari, District-Gautam Budh Nagar came to the conclusion that it is necessary to get measurement and demarcation of the land in dispute i.e. Survey Plot No. 493 area 1.0250 hectares (Petitioner is alleged to be in possession over 0.0500 hectares) measured and demarcated. Consequently, the revenue team was constituted, which made measurement on the spot. Subsequently, the revenue team submitted its report dated 18.03.2023. According to the said report, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession and occupation over an area of 0.0500 hectare of Survey Plot No. 493. No objections were filed by the petitioner to the said report. Respondent 3 upon evaluation of the material on record came to the conclusion that Survey Plot No. 493 area 1.0250 hectares is recorded as a pond in the revenue records. As such, the land in dispute falls in the category of public utility land. Consequently, the same is covered under Section 77 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. In view of above, no right can accrue in favour of petitioner, even on account of long and uninterrupted possession. Consequently, respondent 4, Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Dadari, District-Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated 24.03.2023 directed eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute. Simultaneously, respondent 3 also awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 60 lacs and further imposed execution cost to the tune of Rs. 4200/-.

5. Feeling aggrieved by above order dated 24.03.2023, petitioner filed an appeal in terms of Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was registered as Appeal No. 521 of 2023 (Hari Om v. Noida Industrial Development Authority), under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Various submissions were urged on behalf of the petitioner in support of the appeal. However, none of the same found favour by the appellate authority. Consequently, the appellate authority i.e. Respondent 2, Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Gautam Budh Nagar passed an order of affirmance dated 27.09.2023 dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner. Thus feeling aggrieved by above order dated 24.03.20