Procedural compliance in administrative orders is essential to protect against unlawful actions. Failure to adhere to mandated procedures invalidates such orders.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Heard Shri Arjun Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha/opposite party No.4 and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief(s):-

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 24.02 2025 passed by opposite party no.2 in Case No. 112/2025 (Computerized Case No.D202510330000112) (Babu Versus Gaon Sabha and others), u/s 67(5) of UP. Revenue Code, 2006 and the order dated 26.11 2024 passed by opposite party no. 3 in Case No. 3992/2023 (Computerized Case No.T-202310330203992) (Gram Sabha Saidpur Versus Babu) under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as contained in Annexure No.1&2 to the writ petition.

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to demolish the house of the petitioner and not to recover the amount as shown in the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 from the petitioner, as contained in Annexure No.2 to this writ petition."

3. The concerned Authorities namely Collector, District Hardoi and Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Shahabad, District Hardoi have passed the impugned orders dated 24.02.2025 and 26.11.2024, respectively, in exercise of power under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006").

4. Challenging the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the authority concerned namely Collector, District Hardoi and Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Shahabad, District Hardoi have not followed the procedure prescribed and while passing the impugned order dated 24.02.2025, the Collector/District Magistrate, Hardoi has also failed to take note of the fact that Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Shahabad, District Hardoi has not followed the procedure prescribed while passing the order dated 26.11.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the procedure to be followed, after taking note of the statutory provisions, has been settled by this Court in the judgments passed in the case of Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others , 2022 SCC Online All 829 and Writ-C No. 9500 of 2022, Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank vs. The Additional District Collector, District Unnao and Others.

6. Learned counsel for the side opposite opposed the present petition. However, he could not dispute the law settled by this Court in the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which indicates the procedure to be followed while deciding the case instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 and the same was not followed while passing the order dated 26.11.2024 subsequently affirmed by the order dated 24.02.2025.

7. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The procedure, which should be followed while deciding the case instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006, has already been settled by this Court as it would appear from para 74 of the judgment passed in the case of Rishipal Singh (Supra) as also the judgment passed in the case of Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank (Supra). The relevant para 74 of the judgment passed in the case of Rishipal Singh (Supra) 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