Back
RAJNISH KUMAR
Shyam Sundar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Kumar, J.
Heard Shri Saryu Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Govind Kumar Chaurasiya, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the Tehsildar- Bhiti, District- Ambedkar Nagar by means of which the claim of the petitioner for settlement under Section 67 -A(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on a part of Gata No.1267-Kha, Min. 0.008 hec. and Gata No.1268-Ga, Min. 0.011 hec. has been rejected and the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the respondent no.2/ Collector/District Magistrate, District- Ambedkar Nagar on appeal of the petitioner under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a landless labour and in possession of the Gata No.1267-Kha, Min. 0.008 hec. and Gata No.1268-Ga, Min. 0.011 hec. and his toilet and boundary wall is erected on the said land since last 25 years. Initially it was in possession of his father and after he left the place it is in possession of the petitioner and he is living separately, ther
Authorities must adhere to statutory provisions and consider beneficial legislation in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Eviction orders under the U.P. Revenue Code require measurement and demarcation to establish illegal possession; failure to do so renders such orders unsustainable.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of possession over the disputed plot and the specific eligibility criteria for settlement under Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Cod....
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.
The court ruled that revenue authorities must diligently evaluate evidence and properly calculate damages 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.
A complainant may maintain a writ petition under Section 67 (5) of the UP Revenue Code if they are aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal, but the merits of the case must support their claims for....
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
