The court affirmed the eviction order but quashed the damages due to lack of conclusive evidence and procedural irregularities in the assessment of damages.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Misra, J.

1. 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. At the very outset, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that he be permitted to implead the NOIDA authority as respondent no.6 in the cause title of the writ petition as well as the stay application appended along with the writ petition.

4. Prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner is not opposed by the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for Land Management Committee.

5. It is accordingly allowed.

6. Let necessary amendment in the cause title of the writ petition/stay application be carried out by learned counsel for petitioner during course of the day.

7. 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. 6070 of 2023 (Land Management Committee Vs. Satvir), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure-3 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. 515 of 2023 (Satvir Vs. NOIDA Industrial Development Authority), under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby aforementioned appeal filed by petitioner against order dated 24.03.2023 has been dismissed.

8. Record shows that the dispute relates to Survey Plot No. 493 area 1.0250 hectares situate in village Sultanpur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. The Halka Lekhpal submitted a report (RC Form-19) alleging therein that petitioner is in illegal possession and occupation over an area of 0.0200 hectares of Survey Plot No. 493 area 1.0250 hectares. Upon submission of aforementioned report, proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, Case No.6070 of 2023 (Land Management Committee Vs. Satvir)came to be registered in the Court of Respondent 4, Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Dadari, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. Notice (RC From-20) was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why an order of eviction be not passed against the petitioner and further why damages be not imposed for illegally occupying Gaon Sabha land. In response to the aforesaid notice, petitioner duly appeared in aforementioned case before the respondent no.4 and filed his objections dated 10.03.2023. Petitioner denied the report submitted by Halka Lekhapl and alleged that he is not in possession and occupation over the land in dispute. Since the petitioner had denied his possession over the land in dispute, consequently a spot inspection was ordered to be conducted. A revenue team was constituted to conduct spot inspection. The revenue team so constituted, conducted the spot inspection in the presence of the villagers and submitted its report dated 18.03.2023. As per said report, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession and occupation over an area of 0.0200 hectares of the land in dispute i.e. Survey Plot No. 493 area 1.0250 hectares. Respondent 4, Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Dadari, District-Gautam Budh Nagar upon consideration of the material on record came to the conclusion that petitioner has failed to establish his right, title and interest over the land in dispute. Consequently, petitioner is in illegal possession and occupation of Gaon Sabha land to the extent of 0.0200 hectares. Accordingly, respondent no.4 came to the conclusion that petitioner is liable to be evicted from the land in dispute. Respondent no.4 further held that petitioner is also liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs.24,00,000/-(twenty four lacs) and execution cost of Rs.4,200/-. It thus passed the order da