Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Mohd. Juber – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) Nos. 3025, 3036, 3040, 3041, 3042 of 2024
Decided On : 13-12-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. imposition of eviction based on section 67 of the code, 2006. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioners argue lack of proper proceedings initiation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. claims of improper handling of evidence by state. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's examination of lekhpal's report skepticism. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. guidelines from previous judgment for proceedings under u.p. revenue code. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. orders quashed due to procedural noncompliance. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. resulting judgment allows writ petitions and sets out further proceedings. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Ravi Shankar Tiwari along with Shri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
3. This order shall decide the five connected cases, i.e., writ petition bearing (i) Writ-C No.3041 of 2024, (ii) Writ-C No.3025 of 2024, (iii) Writ-C No.3036 of 2024, (iv) Writ-C No.3040 of 2024 and (v) Writ-C No.3042 of 2024. However, for the sake of convenience the facts are being noticed from Writ-C No.3041 of 2024.
4. The parties are at consensus that the orders impugned arise from the proceedings initiated by the State-respondents under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code, 2006'), wherein by means of the order dated 30th June, 2023 an order of eviction was passed against the petitioners of the respective petitions. The said petitioners filed separate appeals against the order dated 30th June, 2023 and all the five appeals were also dismissed by means of the order dated 07.03.2024, where after the petitioners have come up before this Court assailing the orders both under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as the appellate order passed under Section 67 (5) of the Code, 2006.
5. From the records, it would be seen that the dispute relates to plot No.731. Since all the petitioners in the connected appeals are sons of Mohd. Yunus (the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners), hence, five separate notices were issued. Five separate cases were initiated under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 bearing Suit No. 8883 of 2022 ( Gaon Sabha Vs. Juber ), Suit No. 8885 of 2022 ( Gaon Sabha Vs. Mohd. Mohsin ), Suit No. 8884 of 2022 ( Gaon Sabha Vs. Mohd. Asjad ), Suit No. 8886 of 2022 ( Gaon Sabha Vs. Mohd. Moin ) and Suit No. 8887 of 2022 ( Gaon Sabha Vs. Mohd. Hasnain ).
6. The petitioners in their separate cases had raised a common defense and it is in the aforesaid backdrop that five separate orders were passed under Section 67 of the Code, 2006. Since they were against the petitioners that was escalated before the appellate court, which also dismissed the same by order dated 07.03.2024 and it is in this fashion that five separate writ petitions have been filed.
7. The controversy in question relates to plot No.731, which as per the State-respondents is a Rasta. It is alleged that the petitioners had encroached upon the said land and had raised constructions. Taking note of the aforesaid encroachments, notice was issued to the petitioners dated 01.08.2022 indicating that the petitioners had encroached upon plot No.731 and the constructions were about one year old and a damage of Rs.1,50,000/- was sought to be recovered. Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the Code, 2006, which was contested by the petitioners in their respective cases.
8. The primary defense taken by the petitioners was to the effect that the State Authorities had initially instituted proceedings under Section 129 -B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 against the father of the petitioners, namely, Mohd. Yunus. After due contest, the said proceedings were dismissed by means of the order dated 07.12.2002, which was further escalated by the State-responde
Proper measurement and due process are essential in eviction proceedings, as statutory compliance safeguards against arbitrary actions by the authorities.
Eviction orders under the U.P. Revenue Code require measurement and demarcation to establish illegal possession; failure to do so renders such orders unsustainable.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including the right to be heard and the requirement for evidence to be properly substantiated.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including providing notice and opportunity to be heard, failing which decisions are invalid.
Eviction proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code cannot proceed without proper land demarcation, and damages awarded must be based on a justified assessment.
Authorities must adhere to statutory provisions and consider beneficial legislation in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
The court ruled that revenue authorities must diligently evaluate evidence and properly calculate damages in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Eviction upheld for illegal encroachment on public utility land, but damages quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory calculation procedures.
The court emphasized adherence to procedural guidelines in land encroachment cases, ruling that arbitrary orders lacking proper evidence and consideration must be quashed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
