Eviction orders under the U.P. Revenue Code require measurement and demarcation to establish illegal possession; failure to do so renders such orders unsustainable.

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 formally calling for a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for petitioner has no objection to the same. In view of the consent of the counsel for the parties and as provided under the Rules of Court, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage without formally calling for a counter affidavit.

5. Record shows that the dispute relates to Survey Plot No. 221, area 41.80 sq. mtrs, situate in Village-Bamnauli, Tehsil-Kairana, District-Shamli. In the revenue records, the land in dispute is recorded as road

6. The Halka Lekhpal submitted a report (R.C. Form-19) dated 23.10.2020 alleging therein that petitioner has encroached upon public road by raising a house over part of the same. The said illegal occupation is continuing since 1428F and therefore, petitioner has caused damage to the Gaon Sabha land to the tune of Rs. 62,700/-.

7. After submission of aforementioned report, proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 came to be registered against petitioner in the court of respondent 3, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Kairana, District-Shamli. Accordingly, Case No. 01725 of 2020 (Gaon Sabha Bamnauli v. Manish Sharma), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 came to be registered against petitioner, before respondent 3, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Kairana, District-Shamli. A show cause notice (RC Form-20) dated 08.12.2020 in terms of Section 67(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was issued to the petitioner by respondent 3, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Kairana, District-Shamli, asking him to show cause as to why an order of eviction be not passed against petitioner and further why damages be not awarded against petitioner for illegally occupying the land of Gaon Sabha and thereby causing damage to the same.

8. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, petitioner duly appeared in aforementioned case and filed his objections dated 29.01.2020 disputing the correctness of the report submitted by the Halka Lekhpal as well as the contends of the notice dated 08.12.2020. According to the petitioner, constructions have been raised by him on Survey Plot No. 223, area 1.6950 hectares, which is the tenure of the petitioner. As such, no encroachment has been made by petitioner over the land in dispute. It was thus contended that the report of Halka Lekhpal and the notice issued under Section 67(2) (R.C. Form-20) are factually incorrect and therefore, the proceedings itself are liable to be dropped.

9. In view of above, the issue as to whether, petitioner is in illegal possession and occupation over Gaon Sabha land became a contentious issue. Accordingly, the parties went to trial.

10. The Halka Lekhpal, who had submitted the report dated 23.10.2020 and which report formed the basis of the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against petitioner duly