Proper procedures must be followed in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code to ensure transparency and protect rights against unlawful eviction.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

3. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24/12/2024 passed by the opposite party No.1 and order dated 18/10/2023 passed by the opposite party No.2 as contained in Annexure Nos.1 & 2, respectively, to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to evict the petitioner from his house constructed over Gata No.492, situated at Sarai Govind Rai, Tahsil Sadar, District Pratapagarh, in persuance of the impugned order 18/10/2023 passed by the opposite party No.1."

4. The concerned Authorities namely Collector, District Pratapgarh and Assistant Collector/Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil-Sadar, District Pratapgarh have passed the impugned orders dated 24.12.2024 and 18.10.2023, respectively, in exercise of power under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006").

5. Challenging the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the authority concerned namely Collector, District Pratapgarh and Assistant Collector/Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil-Sadar, District Pratapgarh have not followed the procedure prescribed and while passing the impugned order dated 24.12.2024, the Collector/District Magistrate, Pratapgarh has also failed to take note of the fact that Assistant Collector/Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil-Sadar, District Pratapgarh has not followed the procedure prescribed while passing the order dated 18.10.2023.

6. 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 in Writ-C No.9500 of 2022, ( Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank vs. The Additional District Collector, District Unnao And 2 Others )

7. 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 24.12.2024 subsequently affirmed by the order dated 18.10.2023.

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

9. 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 made with ulterior and oblique motive to dislodge a long settled possession and causing of unnecessary harassment to an innocent villager:

(i) In case of complaint made on RC From 19, the official making it shall ensure that proper survey is