Back
RAJEEV MISRA
Manish Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Misra, J.
Heard Mr. Nipun Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Sachidanand Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, the learned counsel representing respondent 4, Gaon Sabha.
2. Perused the record.
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by respondent 3, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Kairana, District-Shamli in Case No. 01725 of 2020 (Gaon Sabha Bamnauli v. Manish Sharma), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) as well as the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by respondent 2, District Magistrate/Collector, District-Shamli in Appeal No. 857 of 2023 (Manish Sharma v. Gram Sabha Bamnauli), under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby aforementioned appeal filed by petitioner against order dated 04.08.2022 has been dismissed.
4. At the very outset, the learned standing counsel for state respondents and the learned counsel representing respondent 4, Gaon Sabha submit that present writ petition be decided finally on the basis of record without formal
Eviction orders under the U.P. Revenue Code require measurement and demarcation to establish illegal possession; failure to do so renders such orders unsustainable.
Authorities must adhere to statutory provisions and consider beneficial legislation in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
The court ruled that revenue authorities must diligently evaluate evidence and properly calculate damages in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Eviction proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code cannot proceed without proper land demarcation, and damages awarded must be based on a justified assessment.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including the right to be heard and the requirement for evidence to be properly substantiated.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including providing notice and opportunity to be heard, failing which decisions are invalid.
Possession of public utility land does not confer rights; damages must be calculated according to legal standards.
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.
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
