Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Kamla Shankar Dubey – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction, in the array of the parties as well as in the prayer clause of the writ petition during the course of the day.
2. Heard Sri Ratan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hari Om Singh, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
3. Brief facts of the case are that order dated 17.3.2023 under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was passed against the petitioner for ejectment in respect to plot no.1162, area 0.389 hect., treating the petitioner to be in possession over the plot in question as well as imposition of damages against the petitioner. Against the order dated 17.3.2023, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 67(5) on 17.6.2023 alongwith prayer for condonation of delay before the Collecter Bhadohi, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.6.2024. Restoration application dated 19.7.2024 filed by petitioner against the order dated 21.6.2024 has not been allowed rather entire appeal has dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 12.8.2024. Hence, the
Ejectment orders must follow proper procedure, including adequate hearing and survey, and appeals should be decided on merits rather than technical grounds.
The court emphasized that delays in filing appeals should be condoned to ensure substantial justice, overriding technical limitations.
Judicial procedures must ensure proper hearing before ejectment under the U.P. Revenue Code, emphasizing transparency and adherence to statutory guidelines.
Orders of ejectment and damages must adhere to natural justice principles, ensuring proper consideration of objections and conducting necessary surveys before enforcement.
The court ruled that procedural delays should be examined contextually, emphasizing the need for justice over strict adherence to timelines, allowing case merits to guide decisions.
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
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 highlighted the necessity for due process in land disputes, affirming that no demolition should occur pending resolution of restoration applications under the U.P. Revenue Code.
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
