Eviction orders require fresh evidence to be justified, especially after prior orders have been set aside, ensuring due process and fair hearing.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Anoop Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents as well as Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

2. It will be relevant to notice that another similar petition on almost identical facts, filed by the cousin brothers of the present petitioners, bearing WRIT-C No.7305 of 2024 is also engaging the attention of the Court and the learned standing counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 06.09.2024 under the signatures of Tehsildar, Bangaurmau, District Unnao for perusal of the Court, which has been taken on record of the aforesaid WRIT-C No.7305 of 2024.

3. In light of the controversy involved and the nature of the dispute, this Court with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties is deciding the petition at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit as written instructions are available.

4. The petitioners have approached this Court with the averments that the dispute pertains to Plot No.259 measuring 00.25 hectares, situate in Village Anjanipur, Shivpuri, Paragana-Fatehpur Chaurasi, Tehsil-Safipur, District Unnao.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Plot No.259 having a total area of 17 biswas was reserved for 'abadi'. The petitioners have their house constructed and have been in possession since the time of their father.

6. It is urged that on 30.09.1999, a notice was issued to Hari Shankar, who was the father of the petitioners No.1 to 4 alleging that he was in unauthorized possession of the Gaon Sabha land since last ten years and a penalty of Rs.40,000/-was sought to be imposed. The father of the petitioners contested the said notice and filed his objections that the said land is reserved for 'abadi' in the revenue records and even otherwise, the house situate has been there since the time of his ancestors. In such circumstances, the alleged notice was bad in the eyes of law. A copy of the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar dated 24.10.2000 corroborates the stand of the petitioners.

7. It is further urged that once the proceedings were taken forward, the Lekhpal had entered into the witness-box and in his cross-examination, he admitted that the said residential house was quite old and the petitioners (earlier their forefathers) were residing therein and he also admitted a fact that he did not measure and survey the Plot No.259.

8. Despite the same, the Assistant Collector, First Class vide its order dated 26.09.2003 passed an order against the father of the petitioners for eviction and even imposed a penalty of Rs.940/-. The said order was challenged by the father of the petitioners by filing a revision dated 22.12.2003, before the Collector, Unnao, however, the revisional Court also did not find favour with the contentions of the father of the petitioners and since there was some difficulty for the father of the petitioners, he could not properly pursue his revision which came to be dismissed by means of the order dated 10.12.2004.

9. The father of the petitioners thereafter assailed the said orders in a Writ Petition No.1287 (M/S) of 2005 wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of its order dated 09.03.2005 allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter for a fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they were not aware of the proceedings after remand made by the High Court and in the last week of May, 2024, they were served with a notice dated 25.05.2024 wherein it was informed to them that vide order dated 26.09.2003, the petitioners were found in unauthorized possession of the Plot No.259, hence, they were to be evicted. Since, the father of the petitioners had died in the year 2021, they did not have knowledge of the earlier proceedings and orders, hence, the petit