Procedural compliance is essential in eviction orders to ensure transparency and protect rights, as established under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania,J.

1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2.The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.9.2024 passed by opposite party No. 1 i. e. District Magistrate / Collector, Hardoi in Case No. 571 of 2024, computerized case No.D202410330000571, under Section-122-B (4A) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, Ashok alias Ashok Kumar Versus Gram Panchayat and another as well as impugned order dated 4.2.2023 passed by the opposite party No. 2 i. e. Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Sandila District-Hardoi in Case No. 41 of 2016, computerized Case No. T201610330405445, under Section 122 -B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, Gaon Sabha Versus Ashok which are absolutely illegal, irregular and improper and the same have been passed without following the due procedure of law as already been settled by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2022 SCC online ALL 829 and in Writ-C No. 9500 of 2022, Sharda Industries through Partner Mayank Versus the Additional District Collector District-Unnao and two others, as contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this writ petition respectively."

3. The concerned Authorities namely District Magistrate / Collector, Hardoi and Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Sandila District-Hardoi have passed the impugned orders dated 30.09.2024 and 04.02.2023, respectively, in exercise of power under Section 122 -B (4A) and 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950"), respectively.

4. By the order dated 04.02.2023 the respondent No.2 directed the revenue official concerned to evict the petitioner from 0.013 hect. of Gata No. 1569/0.1250 hect.

5. A challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 04.02.2023 on the ground that the procedure, which ought to have been followed by the respondent No.2 at the time of passing of final order in the proceedings instituted under Section 122 -B of the Act of 1950, was not followed.

6. In continuation, it is stated that the procedure, which should be followed, has been indicated by this Court in the judgment dated 02.12.2022 passed in the bunch of petitions, leading of which, is Writ C No.6658 of 2022 (Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 829. A reference has been made to para 74 of the report of Rishipal Singh (Supra), which 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 done in the light of observations made in this judgment; the land, occupation of which has stood identified to be unauthorized is in exact measurement and so also shown in the survey map prepared on scale, as per the Land Revenue Survey Regulations, 1978; the exact assessment of damages on the basis of circle rate with details of calculation made on that basis.

(ii) In a case of suo motu action, before issuing RC Form 20, the authority will ensure that proper report upon RC Form 19 is submitted as per para (i) above on parameters of subrule 1 Rule 67.

(iii) RC Form 2