Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Ram Sewak – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others – Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 3112 of 2025
Decided on : 04-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:- Siya Ram Sahu
For the Respondent:- Achal Singh, C.S.C.

Orders of ejectment and damages must adhere to natural justice principles, ensuring proper consideration of objections and conducting necessary surveys before enforcement.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 67 and 67 (5) - Writ petition against orders of ejectment and damages for unauthorized occupation - The Tahsildar's order was passed arbitrarily without due consideration of the petitioner's objections or necessary demarcation, violating principles of natural justice - The appellate authority failed to properly address the merits of the appeal - Guidance provided for future proceedings under Section 67 to ensure transparency and fairness. (Paras 3, 8-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced ejectment and a damages order of Rs.2,43,000/- regarding plot no.786, challenged the orders made by the Tahsildar and the Collector, asserting a lack of proper legal process and consideration of his claims to possession.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled the orders to be unsustainable, mandating a fresh examination of the matter by the Tahsildar considering the petitioner's objections in line with the established legal principles.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of the orders of ejectment and damages imposed without fair consideration, and the procedural adherence of the authorities involved.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice and the requirement for proper survey and consideration of objections before passing ejectment orders, instructing detailed guidelines for future cases.

Result: Writ petition allowed; orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. facts regarding the petition and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding the orders for ejectment. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observations on procedural fairness. (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
4. key legal procedures and precedents from case law. (Para 7 , 9)
5. conclusion setting aside previous orders and remitting the case. (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Siya Ram Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated in respect to the plot no.786 situated at Village-Tindwara, Tahsil & District- Banda. Tahsildar vide order dated 27.2.2023 passed the order for ejectment in respect to the plot no.786 against the petitioner as well as imposed damages of Rs.2,43,000/- against the petitioner. Against the order of Tahsildar dated 27.2.2023, appeal under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Collector / respondent no.2 which was dismissed vide order dated 23.8.2024, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.8.2024 passed by respondent no.2 i.e. District Magistrate/ Collector, Banda in Appeal No.458 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.D202407110000458) (Ram Sewak Vs. Gaon Sabha and Another), under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and order dated 27.2.2023 passed by respondent no.3 i.e. Tahsildar, Tahsil and District- Banda in Case No.4196 of 2017, (Computerized Case No.T2017071142014196) (Gaon Sabha vs. Ram Sewak), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

ii. to issue any other writ or direction to the respondent authority concerned not to dispossess to the petitioner, nor realize the damages of Rs.2,43,000/- imposed upon him."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the petitioner in arbitrary and ex-parte manner. He further submitted that the damages has been imposed in arbitrary manner without considering the provisions contained under Rule 67 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. He further submitted that in view of the ground taken in appeal with regard to the possession over the plot no.786, the authorities have not conducted the survey / demarcation of the plot in question, as such, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court reported in 2023 (1) ADJ 154 , (Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others) in support of his argument. He further placed the revenue entry of the plot in question in order to demonstrate that the petitioner is not in illegal possession of plot no.786.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that the order for ejectment and damages has been rightly passed by the Tahsildar in view of the entry of the plot no.786. They further submitted that the authorities have conducted the demarcation of the plot in question, as such, no interference is required in the matter. They further submitted that the provisions contained under Rule 36 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 has been followed while imposing the damages against the petitioner, as such, no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the Tahsildar has passed the order for ejectment and damages against the petitioner in respect to the plot no.786 area 0.015 hectare vide order dated 27.2.2023 and the order of Tahsildar has been maintained in appeal by the Collector vide order dated 23.8.2024.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy