Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJEEV MISRA, J.
Sahabuddin – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 40152 of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Pradeep Kumar, Piyush Patel
For the Respondent: Sudhir Bharti

Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including the right to be heard and the requirement for evidence to be properly substantiated.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 67 and 67(5) - Writ petition challenging orders of eviction and damages imposed for illegal possession of public utility land - Court found that proceedings were initiated based on a report not proved by the Halka Lekhpal, and spot inspections were conducted without notice to the petitioner - Authorities failed to exercise jurisdiction diligently. (Paras 17, 19)

(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and not an appeal against the decision itself. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the orders of eviction and damages imposed for allegedly being in illegal possession of land recorded as a pond, asserting that the proceedings were flawed due to lack of proper evidence and opportunity to be heard.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were based on unproven reports and lacked due process, leading to a quashing of the orders and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the eviction order and the imposition of damages without proper evidence and opportunity for the petitioner to contest.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the proceedings were flawed due to the absence of the Halka Lekhpal to prove the report and the lack of notice to the petitioner during spot inspections, emphasizing the need for due process.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders quashed and remitted for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV MISRA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned standing counsel representing respondents 1, to 4 and Mr. Brij Kumar Saroj, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sudhir Bharti, the learned counsel representing respndent-5.

2. Perused the record.

3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by respondent-4, Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil-Sadar, District-Maharajganj in Case No. 929 of 2023 (Sahabuddin Vs. State) under Section 67 of U.P. Land Revenue Code 2006 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by respondent-2, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Maharajganj in Appeal No. 929 of 2023 (Shahabuddin Vs. Gaon Sabha) under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition, whereby the appeal filed by petitioner against order dated 18.02.2023 has been dismissed.

4. Present writ petition came up for admission on 19.01.2024 and this Court passed the following order:

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 18.01.2023, passed by respondent no. 4-Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Sadar, district Mahrajganj in Case No. 9133 of 2021 (Gaon Sabha Vs. Sahabuddin), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the order dated 27.10.2023, passed by respondent no. 2-Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Mahrajganj in Appeal No. 929 of 2023 (Sahabuddin Vs. Gaon Sabha), under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Learned counsel for petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the judgment rendered by this Court in Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC Online All 829 and also the averments made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition.

In view of above, the learned Standing Counsel is directed to obtain instructions regarding above.

Matter shall accordingly re-appear, as fresh, on 02.02.2024.

Order Date 19.1.2024.”

5. Pursuant to above order dated 19.01.2024, the learned standing counsel has received instructions in the matter, Copy of the same has been placed before this Court and the same is taken on record.

6. Record shows that the dispute relates to survey plot o. 149 area 0.295 hectares situate in village-Panchayat-Kotwa, Tappa-Biraicha, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil, Sadar, District-Maharajganj. The Halka Lekhpal submitted his report dated 18.09.2021 (R.C. Form-19) stating therein that petitioner is in illegal possession and occupation over an area of 0.215 hectares of the land in dispute. Consequently, proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 came to be registered against petitioner in the Court of respondent 4, Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Sadar, District-Maharajganj by way of Case No. 9133 of 2021 (Gaon Sabha Vs. Sahabuddin) under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006.

7. Notice (R.C. Form No. 20) in terms of Section 67(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause why an order of eviction be not passed against petitioner and further why damages be also not imposed against petitioner for causing damage to Gaon Sabha land on account of illegal possession and occupation of Gaon Sabha land. In response to the said notice, the petitioner duly appeared in aforementioned case and filed his objections dated 25.01.2022. Petitioner disputed the contents of the report submitted by Halka Lekhpal and further alleged that he is not in illegal possession or occupation over survey plot no. 149, which is recorded as pond or survey plot no. 271 which is recorded as a road. The house of the petitioner is situate in Abadi (Dih). As such, it was urged on behalf of petitioner that the report submitted by Halka Lekhpal is manifestly incorrect and is liable to be ignored. Consequently proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 initiated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document