IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Gagan Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others – Respondents
Writ C. No. 1636 Of 2024
Decided On : 20-02-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Saurabh Lavania, J.)
1. Heard Sri A.Z. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/Gaon Sabha concerned.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.12.2023, as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 & 12 to this petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that the petitioner instituted a suit under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), registered as Case No. 10483/2019, Computerized Case No. T201910330110483 (Gagan Mishra vs. Gaon Sabha), with regard to Gata No. 843M area 0.5690 Hectare situated at Village-Nanakganj Grant, Pargana-Gopamau, Tehsil and District-Hardoi in the month of October, 2019.
4. The respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District-Hardoi decided the case in favour of petitioner on 18.02.2020. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.02.2020 on reproduction reads as under:-
^^[krkSuh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd [krkSuh esa i{kksa ds ;Fkksfpr va'k jdck fofuf'pr gSA bl dkj.k izkjfEHkd fMdzh ikfjr fd;s tkus dh vko';drk ugha gSA pwafd orZeku fof/k O;oLFkk ds vUrxZr d`"kd Hkwfe;ksa ds va'k fu/kkZj.k dh dk;Zokgh xfreku gSA ,slh n'kk esa dqjkZQkV dh dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA rn~uqlkj vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk mi;qDr gSA
vkns'k
vr% vkns'k fd;k tkrk gS fd xzke ukuxdxat xzUV ijxuk xksikeÅ rglhy o ftyk gjnksbZ dh [krkSuh lu~ 1424&1429Q0 ds [kkrk la0&602 dh xkVk la0&843fe0@0-4390 gs0 oknh ds uke o 843 fe0@0-190 gs0 lM+d ds uke rFkk 843fe0@0-130 gs0 taxy U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsaA vkns'k dh izfr rglhynkj lnj dks vuqikyukFkZ Hksth tk;sA^^
5. As on the spot, actual partition was not carried out by the revenue official concerned in terms of the order dated 18.02.2020, the petitioner by means of an application registered as Case No. EA/299/2022/Hardoi, Computerized Case No. R2022103300299 (Gagan Mishra vs. Gaon Sabha) approached the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow seeking direction for expeditious disposal of the case before the respondent No. 3, as provided under para 494 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual. This case was disposed of by the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow vide order dated 10.05.2022. A perusal of order dated 10.05.2022 indicates that the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow directed the respondent No. 3 to conclude the proceedings pending before it within the period of four months. The order dated 10.05.2022 on reproduction reads as under:-
^^vkns'k
fopkjk/khu izkFkZuk&i= fu;e 494 m0iz0 jktLo U;k;ky; fu;e laxzg ¼la'kks/ku½ fu;ekoyh] 2016 ds vUrxZr voj U;k;ky;@mi ftykf/kdkjh&lnj] tuin&gjnksbZ U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu okn la[;k Vh&201910330110483] ¼xxu feJk cuke xkao lHkk ukudxat xazV½ vUrxZr /kkjk&116] m0iz0 jktLo lafgrk&2006 ds 'kh?kz fuLrkj.k djus gsrq] funsZ'k fn;s tkus fo"k;d] ifj"kn esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
2& iqdkj djk;h x;hA izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk] Jh ,l0ih0 flag rFkk foi{kh dh vksj ls fo}ku LFkkbZ vf/koDrk] Jh izrki flag mifLFkr gq;sA nksuksa i{kksa ds vf/koDrkvksa }kjk iz'uxr okn ds 'kh?kz fuLrkj.k gsrq v/khuLFk jktLo U;k;ky; dks funsZ'k fuxZr djus gsrq lgefr O;Dr dh x;hA
3& eSus nksuks i{kksa ds vf/koDrkvksa dks lquk rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa dk lE;d~ ifj'khyu fd;k o ik;k fd mi ftykf/kdkjh&lnj] tuin&gjnksbZ U;k;ky; dks] muds U;k;ky; esa izpfyr okn la[;k Vh&201910330110483] ¼xxu feJk cuke xkao rFkk ukudxat xzaV½ ds 'kh?kz fuLrkj.k gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k tkuk fof/k lEer o vko';d gSA
4& mijksDr izLrj&2 o 3 ds dze esa] mi ftykf/kdkjh& lnj] tuin& gjnksbZ dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns'k dh izekf.kr izfr voj@v/khuLFk jktLo U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;s tkus ds i'pkr vf/kdre 04 ekg esa] mHk;i{kksa dks uSlfxZd U;k; fl)kUr ds vuqlkj i;kZIr lk{; o lquokbZ dk volj iznku djrs gq;s] xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij] okn la[;k Vh&201910330110483 esa fu.kZ; ikfjr djsaA
5& mi ftykf/kdkjh&lnj] tuin&gjnksbZ] mijksDr izLrj&4 esa fn;s funs'kksa dk ikyu djrs le;] muds le{k yfEcr@iqjkus oknksa
Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P AIR 1966 SC 828
Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar
Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa v. State of Karnataka
A partition suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code is not maintainable if the petitioner is the sole recorded owner of the land.
The court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must adhere to procedural integrity, and any order based on false representations is void.
The court ruled that revenue authorities must diligently evaluate evidence and properly calculate damages in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Eviction proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code cannot proceed without proper land demarcation, and damages awarded must be based on a justified assessment.
Appellate courts must provide reasoned judgments addressing all grounds raised in appeals to ensure justice and proper application of law.
The court established that restoration proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are valid despite the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing jurisdictional competence and subs....
Authorities must adhere to statutory provisions and consider beneficial legislation in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.