Eviction upheld for illegal possession of public land, but damages quashed due to lack of justification and procedural errors by the appellate authority.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Misra, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2, 3 and Mr. D.S. Pandey, the learned counsel representing respondent 4 .

2. Perused the record.

3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 30.12.2020 passed by respondent 3 Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau in Case No. 02973 of 2020 (Report Vs. Umesh Singh) under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by respondent Collector/District Magistrate, Mau in Appeal No. 35 of 2023 (Umesh Singh Tehsildar), under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition).

4. Record shows that the Halka Lekhpal submitted his report dated 2.3.2020 (R.C. Form 19) alleging therein that petitioner is in illegal possession and occupation over Survey Plot No. 1 area 0.023 hectare which is recorded as a nala in the revenue record. After submission of aforesaid report, proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 came to be registered against petitioner by way of Case No. 2973 of 2020 (Report Lekhpal Vs. Umesh Singh) under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006. Accordingly, notice (R.C. Form 20) was issued to the petitioner. However, in spite of service of notice, the petitioner did not appear in aforementioned proceedings nor he filed his objection in the same. Respondent 3 Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau upon consideration of the material on record accepted the report of the Halka Lekhpal and accordingly, passed an order dated 30.12.2020, whereby not only eviction was directed against petitioner but also damages were imposed to the tune of Rs. 7,82,000/-Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2020 preferred a time barred appeal in terms of Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before respondent 2 Collector/District Magistrate, Mau. The same was registered as Appeal No. 35 of 2023. Respondent 2 Collector/District Magistrat, Mau did not agree with the grounds of appeal or the arguments raised on behalf of petitioner in support of the appeal. Consequently, respondent 2 Collector/District Magistrate, Mau without first deciding the delay condonation matter dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner by passing an order of affirmence dated 31.10.2023.

5. Thus feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 30.12.2020 and 31.10.2023 referred to above, petitioner has now approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though the petitioner did not appear before respondent 3 Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Ist Class, nor he filed an objection to the notice (R.S. Form 20), yet irrespective of above, the order dated 30.12.2020 passed by respondent 3 cannot be sustained in law. It is by now well settled that even if a judgement is ex-parte, yet it must be in accordance with law. Attention of the Court was then invited to the order dated 30.12.2020 and with reference to above, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that no trial has taken place in respect of the issues involved in the present proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, inasmuch as the Halka Lekhpal, who submitted the report dated 02.03.2020 (R.C. Form 19) and which forms the basis of the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 did not appear before respondent 3, Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau to prove the report. He, therefore, contends that no trial has taken place. It is then contended that vide order dated 30.12.2020 not only eviction of petitioner from the land in dispute has been directed but also damages to the tune of 7,82,000/-have bene imposed against the petitioner. However, the damages so awarded against the petitioner is not only excessive, irrational but also illusionary. As