The court emphasized adherence to procedural guidelines in land encroachment cases, ruling that arbitrary orders lacking proper evidence and consideration must be quashed.

JUDGMENT :

(Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri S. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the land management committee.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby an order has been passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 holding that the petitioner has encroached upon the chak-marg which is on gata no.1011, measuring 0.003 hectares and an order of eviction has been passed coupled with imposing a sum of Rs.675 as damages and rupees 1000 as recovery charges. The said order was assailed in appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the appeal has been dismissed by the respondent no.2 by means of order dated 05.04.2024.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily that the dispute which has been raised, has not been appropriatelyconsidered. It is submitted that the petitioner is the tenure holder of his bhumidhari land bearing no.988 measuring 0.6940 hectares in village Mishrauliya, Pargana and Tehsil Ekauna, District Shrawasti.

4. It has also been submitted that demarcation proceedings have been initiated which are engaging the attention of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ekauna. During the pendecny of the aforesaid proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which relates to plot no.988. At the behest of one private person, namely, Kutubuddin under whose influence proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. It is urged that in the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, neither proper on site inspection was made nor the Lekhpal had furnished his proper report. The report of the Lekhpal needless to say was not even proved as per law. An alleged inspection report dated 17.01.2024 has been taken as a base and on the very next date i.e. 18.01.2024, the order was passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which clearly indicates that no evidence was adduced and the order impugned dated 18.01.2024 was passed in haste.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while filing the appeal all these issues were raised before the Collector who also did not examine the same in the correct prespective and dismissed the appeal in a cursory manner.

7. It is also pointed out that from the perusal of the appellate order, it would indicate that as per the said order the alleged encroachment is said to exist on plot no.987, which is recorded in the revenue records as a nali. It is submitted that this is an error apparent on the face of the record to indicate that there has been no proper appreciation of the facts and in a mechanical manner the order has been passed by the appellate authority.

8. It is thus urged that even the appellate order suffers from the vice of being arbitrary and it deserves to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others 2022 SCC Online All. 829.

9. Learned Standing Counsel though made his submissions refuting the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and attempted to justify the impugned orders. However, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that even if at all, the spot inspection was made on 17.01.2024 but no evidence was led to prove the report of the Lekhpal as the order came to be passed on 18.01.2024. He also could not dispute the fact that from the perusal of the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the appellate authority, there is a reference that the encroachment exists on plot no.987 whereas the proceedings before the respondent no.3 was initiated in respect of plot no.1011 which is said to be recorded as a chakmarg.

10. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear view that both the impugned orders suffer from the vice of being arbitrary and definitelythere is no com