Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not apply to summary proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing the need for integrated adjudication of objections with merits.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J N Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing along with Sri O P Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted for quashing the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by respondent no.4, namely the Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, in Case No.14775 of 2023 (Computer Case No. T202311270214775), Land Management Committee versus Chetram, arising out of proceedings under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 [Code, 2006] as also the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2, the Additional Commissioner (Administration)-III, Meerut Division, Meerut, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 210 of the Code has been rejected.

3. Though the impugned orders are interlocutory in nature, the writ petition raises a substantial and recurring question of law concerning the applicability of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] to summary proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006. The question assumes significance, inasmuch as proceedings under are intended to provide an expeditious remedy, whereas the power of rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 operates at the threshold to terminate proceedings that are barred in law or do not disclose a cause of action. The issue has repeatedly arisen before the revenue courts and, therefore, calls for a considered exposition of the legal position.

4. Proceedings under Section 67 (1) of the Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner on the allegation of unauthorised occupation of Gram Sabha land. The initiation of proceedings was founded upon information furnished in the manner prescribed by the concerned revenue authority, culminating in a report submitted in RC Form–19, as contemplated under (1). Consequent thereto, a show-cause notice in RC Form–20 was issued to the petitioner under (2), affording him opportunity to submit objections within the time prescribed.

5. Upon receipt of the notice issued under Section 67 (2), the petitioner, instead of confining himself to objections contemplated thereunder, filed an application captioned under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the proceedings at the threshold on the ground of alleged non-maintainability. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed detailed objections on merits on 21.04.2024, as contemplated under (2).

6. The Assistant Collector, by order dated 24.03.2025, declined to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at the threshold, holding that the objection as to maintainability would be considered along with the objections on merits at the stage of final adjudication under Section 67 (3).

7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006, which came to be dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 19.08.2025, holding that no jurisdictional error or illegality was made out.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC raised a pure question of maintainability, which ought to have been decided as a preliminary issue prior to adjudication on merits. Reliance was placed upon Section 214 of the Code, 2006, contending that principles of CPC apply and deferment of such adjudication amounts to jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226.

9. Per contra, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-re