Procedural compliance is essential in eviction proceedings to ensure fairness and transparency, as established by prior judgments.

JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the State and Sri Vikram Dutt Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha concerned.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.2-District Magistrate/Collector, District-Bahraich, in the proceedings carried out against the petitioner under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") registered as Case No. 535 of 2023, Computerized Case No. D202308150000535 (Aslam vs. Gaon Sabha) and the order dated 26.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.4-Tehsildar, Tehsil-Kaisarganj, District-Bahraich in a Case No. T201408150300002 instituted under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950") has also been challenged.

3. By the order dated 26.06.2021 the respondent No.4 directed the revenue official concerned to evict the petitioner from Gata No. 930/0.010 hect.

4. A challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 26.06.2021 on the ground that the procedure, which ought to have been followed by the respondent No.4 at the time of passing of final order in the proceedings instituted under Section 122-B of the Act of 1950, was not followed.

5. In continuation, it is stated that the procedure, which should be followed, has been indicated by this Court in the judgment dated 02.12.2022 passed in the bunch of petitions, leading of which, is Writ C No.6658 of 2022 (Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 829. A reference has been made to para 74 of the report of Rishipal Singh (Supra), which reads as under:-

"74. Thus, in my view, following guidelines be adopted as procedure to be applied to proceedings under Sections 67,67A and 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code. It is all aimed at ensuring transparency in the procedure, judiciousness in approach by the authorities and to thwart every complaint made with ulterior and oblique motive to dislodge a long settled possession and causing of unnecessary harassment to an innocent villager:

(i) In case of complaint made on RC From 19, the official making it shall ensure that proper survey is done in the light of observations made in this judgment; the land, occupation of which has stood identified to be unauthorized is in exact measurement and so also shown in the survey map prepared on scale, as per the Land Revenue Survey Regulations, 1978; the exact assessment of damages on the basis of circle rate with details of calculation made on that basis.

(ii) In a case of suo motu action, before issuing RC Form 20, the authority will ensure that proper report upon RC Form 19 is submitted as per para (i) above on parameters of subrule 1 Rule 67.

(iii) RC Form 20 must be accompanied by a copy of report and spot survey submitted alongwith RC Form 19 to the person against whom proceedings have been instituted, or even otherwise submitted in case of suo motu action vide para (ii) above.

(iv) Upon reply being filed to the notice, if authority finds that spot survey/explanation report is not satisfactory, it may order for a fresh spot report to be prepared in presence of the party aggrieved.

(v) In the event, objection includes a plea of statutory protection/ benefit under Section 67-A, the authority should invite the objection from the Gaon Sabha, and will decide the same alongwith the matter under Section 67, without requiring aggrieved party to move separate application under Section 67-A.

(vi) If the report is admitted on record, may be in case no objection is filed, the authority must ensure presence of the person preparing the report before it, to prove the report by his statement, with a right to aggrieved party to cross question him.

(vii) The authority must endeavour to decide the case within time framed provided under the relevant Act and the Rules and should desist from granting adjour