The court ruled that revenue authorities must diligently evaluate evidence and properly calculate damages in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Misra, J.

Heard Mr. Dev Prakash Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Ambuj Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Achal Singh, the learned counsel representing Respondent 4.

2. At the very outset, the learned standing counsel and the learned counsel representing respondent 4 submit that present writ petition be decided finally without calling for a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for petitioner has not objection to the same. Accordingly, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage, without calling for a counter affidavit.

3. Perused the record.

4. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Respondent 3, Assistant Collector/Tehsildar (Judicial), Karvi Chitrakoot in Case No. 603 of 2020 (Gaon Sabha Chakaundh v. Amrit Lal), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and the order dated 27.07.2023 passed by Respondent 2, Collector/District Magistrate, Chitrakoot in Appeal No. 213 of 2023 (Amrit Lal v. Gaon Sabha Chakaundh), under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby aforesaid appeal filed by petitioner against order dated 31.03.2023 has been dismissed.

5. Record shows that the dispute relates to Survey Plot No. 466 area 0.182 hectares situate in Village-Chakaundh, Tehsil-Karvi, District-Chitrakoot. The halka Lekhpal submitted a report dated 08.01.2020 (RC Form-19) alleging therein that Survey Plot No. 466 area 0.182 hectares is recorded in category 5(1) (Naveen Parti) in the Khatauni of 1424-1429 Falsi. However, the petitioner-Amrit Lal has encroached upon an area of 0.015 hectares of aforesaid plot by illegaly constructing a boundary wall and thereby caused damage to the tune of Rs. 3,77,000/- to the Gaon Sabha.

6. Upon receipt of aforesaid report dated 08.01.2020, proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly Case No. 603 of 2020 (Gaon Sabha Chakaundh v. Amrit Lal), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 came to be registered against petitioner in the court of respondent 3, Assistant Collector/Tehsildar (Judicial), Karvi Chitrakoot.

7. A show cause notice (RC Form-20) in terms of Section 67(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was issued to the petitioner to show cause why an order of eviction/damages be not passed against petitioner for illegal possession/encroachment over Gaon Sabha land and thereby causing damage to the same. Upon receipt of aforesaid notice, petitioner duly appeared before respondent 3, Assistant Collector/Tehsildar (Judicial), Karvi Chitrakoot and filed an application seeking time to file objections. The petitioner, thereafter, duly filed his objections dated 18.07.2020 disputing the correctness of the proceedings. According to the petitioner, the land in dispute is Abadi on the spot. The predecessors in interest of the petitioner were in possession over the land in dispute. As such, petitioner is the Abadi holder of the land in dispute. The Halka Lekhpal has submitted his report on account of village politics which is factually and legally incorrect. Petitioner also filed documentary evidence in support of his objections namely C.H. Form-41, C.H. Form-45, Map of 1416 Fasli.

8. In view of the specific denial by petitioner regarding encroachment/illegal possession/occupation over Gaon Sabha land, the issue whether petitioner is in illegal possession/occupation over Gaon Sabha land become a contentious issue. Accordingly, the parties went to trial.

9. The halka Lekhpal who had submitted the report dated 08.01.2020 and which report formed the basis of the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 duly appeared before Respondent 3 and proved the report dated 08.01.2020 submitted by him.

10. Upon evaluation of the pleadings of