Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
Saudagar Rajbhar – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 18029 of 2024
Decided On : 09-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ram Singh Yadav, Rohit Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.

Procedural fairness is essential in eviction proceedings; failure to address specific grounds in appeals and adhere to established guidelines violates due process.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 67 and 67(5) - Writ petition against ex-parte eviction order - Petitioner constructed a house in 1985, claimed no notice was served prior to eviction - Authorities failed to follow procedural guidelines established in prior case law - Court found that grounds raised in appeal were not addressed, leading to a lack of due process. (Paras 4, 6, 8, 9)

(B) Procedural Fairness - The court emphasized the necessity for adherence to procedural guidelines to ensure transparency and fairness in eviction proceedings, as established in Rishipal Singh case. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner constructed a house on land registered as 'Jungle' without notice of eviction, leading to an ex-parte order. The petitioner claimed procedural violations in the eviction process.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the authorities did not follow the required procedures and set aside the impugned orders.

Issues: The main issues included whether the authorities followed proper procedures and addressed the grounds raised in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to address specific grounds in the appeal and the lack of adherence to procedural guidelines constituted a violation of the petitioner's rights.

Result: The writ petition stands allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Shri Rohit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel, who has put in appearance for the Respondent No. 4.

2. The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings undertaken under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and is directed against the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue)/Additional Collector, Ghazipur in Restoration Application in Case No. 72 of 2024 (Saudagar Vs. Gaon Sabha), under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3, Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector 1st Class, Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur in Case No. 1707 of 2023 (Saudagar Vs. Gaon Sabhad and Others), under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as order dated 19.05.2022 passed by Respondent No. 3, Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector 1st Class, Tehsil Mohammadabad, Ghazipur in Case No. 4549 of 2021 (Gaon Sabha Vs. Saudagar), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner had constructed house in the year 1985 in the small area of Gata No. 399/0.005 hectare situated at Village Nevada, Pargana Zahurabad, Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur and his family is residing in the said house. No notice was ever served to the petitioner and ex-parte order of eviction was passed. The statement of the concerned Lekhpal was recorded on 06.05.2022 wherein he has stated that the Gata No. 399 area 0.1260 hectare was register in the revenue record as "Jungle" land. The Tehsildar (Judicial) Mohammadabad, Ghazipur vide order dated 19.05.2022 passed the order of eviction and also imposed penalty to the tune of Rs.4100/-. Against the said order, the petitioner had filed the restoration application along with Section 5 of Limitation Act for recalling of the ex-parte order dated 19.05.2022, which was also rejected.

4. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal being Appeal No. 1707 of 2023 (Saudagar Vs. Gaon Sabha) under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Respondent No. 2, which was also dismissed. A specific ground to this effect was taken by the petitioner in the Appeal under Section 67 (5) but the same has not been adverted to. It is also alleged that the Lekhpal concerned has submitted a false report which was relied upon by the Assistant Collector-1st/Tehsildar, Tehsil Mohammadabad District Ghazipur and a request to examine the Lekhpal was allegedly turned down. It is contended that both the Assistant Collector-1st/Tehsildar and the Appellate Authority have not assigned any reasons for passing the orders impugned and the procedure as contemplated under Section 67 have not been followed by the Authorities. It is thus submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the writ petition allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the State respondents and Gaon Sabha have supported the order impugned and submit that the authorities have recorded the findings of facts which call for no interference in writ proceedings and no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Admittedly the order passed by the Assistant Collector-1st/Tehsildar under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 is ex-parte. The petitioner took specific grounds in the Appeal under Section 67 (5). Prima facie, the Court finds that the grounds as raised in the Appeal has not been adverted to by the Appellate Authority while dealing with the Appeal.

7. The manner and the method in which spot inspection is to be conducted, reports prepared and the procedure to be adopted by the Revenue Authorities in exercise of powers conferred under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 came up for consideration before a coordinate Bench of this Court in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document