Judicial guidelines for mandatory cross-examination in summary revenue proceedings cannot override existing statutory rules until formally adopted by the state through legislative amendment. Administrative orders passed in compliance with established statutory summary procedures remain valid if they satisfy the fundamental requirements of the governing code.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Mansoor, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, whereby order is for eviction and imposition of penalty have been passed against the petitioner for having illegally encroached and built a mosque on land situated at Gata No. 648, area 0.300Hec., which is recorded as “Khalihan” in the revenue records and is consequently a land belonging to the Gram Sabha.

3. The proceedings were initiated by the issuance of a notice in RC form 19 requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from land situated at Gata No. 648, situated at Village – Asti, Pargana – Mohana, Tehsil - Bakshi-Ka-Talab, District - Lucknow. In pursuance of the notice, the petitioners had appeared before the Tehsildar on 11/12/2024 and filed their objections stating that they had not constructed a mosque on the Gram Sabha land, and the existing mosque had been constructed 60 years before to facilitate the persons following Islam and further prayed for setting aside the notice.

4. The Tehsildar after considering the objections raised by the petitioners rejected the same holding that the land on which the mosque was existing at Gata No. 648 is recorded as “Khalihan” and therefore is a land owned by the Gram Sabha, and the petitioner does not have any right interest or title in the disputed land and therefore passed orders for eviction and imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs.36,000/-.

5. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 28/02/2025, preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Lucknow. The Additional District Magistrate after considering the entire material on record was of the view that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that he has any right, interest or title in the disputed property as the same was undisputedly recorded as Gram Sabha land and accordingly did not find any reason for interfering with the order dated 28/02/2025 passed by the Tehsildar and accordingly rejected the appeal by means of the order dated 31/10/2025.

6. Thereafter, the instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the validity of the order dated 28/02/2025, as well as the appellate order dated 31/10/2025.

7. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is a clear violation of the procedure prescribed under law by the Tehsildar since due opportunity of hearing was denied to the petitioner and the statement of the Lekhpal was never recorded and neither was any evidence led by the State, nor were the petitioners permitted to cross examine any of the witnesses for the State and hence prayed for setting aside of the orders of impugned in the writ petition.

8. In support of the submission, learned counsel, the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh vs State of U.P & Others, Writ – C No. 6658 of 2022. It was vehemently contended that the procedure to be followed by the authorities while exercising power under Section 67 of the U.P Revenue Code has been clearly laid down by this Court in paragraphs 74 and