A claim for land under Sections 9 and 67-A must demonstrate legal possession; mere assertion without proof does not warrant legal entitlement or protection against eviction.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. These bunch of writ petitions arise out of proceedings initiated under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Code of 2006’) for evicting petitioners from the land of Gaon Sabha. The order passed under Section 67 (1) of the Code of 2006 was subjected to appeal under Section 67 (5) which confirmed the order of eviction leading to filing of the present writ petitions.

2. The issue raised in all the connected matters are one and the same and related to the same village and, as such, all the matter have been tagged together and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties all the writ petitions are being heard together and decided by a common judgment/order.

3. Facts, in brief, of the leading writ petition being Writ-C No. 719 of 2022, are that dispute relates to old Khasra No. 137, which has been renumbered in consolidation proceedings as Khasra No. 1275 situated in Village Bhaluhi Madari Patti, Tappa Mainpur, Pargana Sidhua Jobna, Tehsil Kasaya, District Kushinagar. Petitioners claim the land to be of abadi nature and in possession since the time of their ancestors. After the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1952 (U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act 1950) the abadi site stood settled with the petitioners. A show cause notice in RC Form 20 under Rule 67 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Rules of 2016’) was issued but no objections were filed nor petitioners appeared before the court of Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, consequently, an order was passed for eviction on 3.12.2020 and also imposing the damages amounting to Rs. 3,28,500/- for unauthorized occupation of land in question.

4. Petitioners challenged the said order and filed Appeal No. 1273 of 2021 under Section 67 (5) of the Code of 2006, which was dismissed on 14.12.2021. Hence, present writ petition. Similarly, in other bunch of cases the eviction order was passed against various petitioners which was subjected in appeal, which was dismissed. Dismissal of appeal led to filing of the connected writ petitions.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the land in question stood settled in favour of petitioners in terms of Section 9 of the Act No. 1 of 1952 as abadi was existing of the ancestors of petitioners. According to him without dealing with the issue of Section 9, the revenue authorities have proceeded to pass the order of eviction confirming the same in appeal. It was further submitted that the land in question is not a public utility land as defined under Section 132 of the Act No. 1 of 1952 as well as Section 67 of the Code of 2006 and, thus, the same can be settled in favour of petitioner under Section 67 -A of the Code of 2006.

6. It was also contended that the RC Form 19 & 20 was never served upon the petitioners before the order of eviction was passed and in garb of the fact that extension of Kushinagar Airport has to be done the State authorities are forcibly evicting the petitioners to deprive them of their rights as accrued under Section 9 of the Act No. 1 of 1952. Reliance has been placed upon the decision rendered in Manorey @ Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue , AIR 2003 SC 4102 , Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others , 2023 (160) RD 204 , Sharda Industries through partner Mayank Vs. The Additional District Collector, District Unnao and others , Writ-C No. 9500 of 2022 decided on 14.2.2023, Pushpa Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and others , Writ-C No. 9433 of 2023 decided on 28.10.2023 and Writ-C No. 19804 of 2021 , Babu Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others , decided on 13.8.2021.

7. Sri Sud