Judicial procedures must ensure proper hearing before ejectment under the U.P. Revenue Code, emphasizing transparency and adherence to statutory guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is heard finally without inviting counter affidavit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners' mother was recorded over plot No. 236 area 1/1 situated at village-Behati, Dehjagir Tehsil & District Bareilly. An order for ejectment and damages has been passed by Tehsildar Bareilly against the petitioners on 27.07.2024 in the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. An appeal under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by petitioner against the order dated 27.07.2024 has been dismissed by Collector under the impugned order dated 15.10.2024. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for following relief:-

"a. Issue a writ, in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 27.07.2024 passed by Assistant Collector/Tehsildar (Sadar) Bareilly, in Case No. 395 of 2023 under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code and order dated 15.10.2024 passed by District Magistrate/Collector Bareillyu in Appeal No. 1497 of 2024 under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code passed by respondent No. 2 & 3 in the interest of Justice.

b. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute and not take any coercive action during the pendency of this petition."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order for ejectment and damages has been passed by Tehsildar in an arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the damages has been imposed without any urisdiction in respect to plot which is recorded as naveen parti. He further submitted that the petitioner has taken ground in appeal that petitioner is in possession since his ancestral and the order for ejectment and damages of Rs. 10,45,000/- has been passed without any basis. He further submitted that the petitioner has taken ground in appeal that petitioners are in possession of their bhumidhari land since the time of their ancestor and the order for ejectment/damages has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the provisions contained under the U.P. Revenue Rules Code & Rules framed thereunder has been violated. He placed reliance upon judgment of this Court reported in Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others , 2023 (1) ADJ 154 in support of his argument.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State and counsel for Gaon Sabha submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 2 & 3. They submitted that the plot in dispute is recorded as naveen parti as such, there is no illegality in the impugned orders.

6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that the order for ejectment and damages has been passed on 27.07.2024 by Tehsildar against the petitioners and the same has been maintained in appeal.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of Rule-67 (2) and 67 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 will be relevant for perusal which are as under:-

U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016

"67 (2) The Assistant Collector shall thereafter proceed to take action under section 67(2) and for that purp