Neeraj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no proceedings were drawn against the petitioner and demolition of structures constructed by the petitioner on the land in question which belong to him has been undertaken. Further no fresh construction is being permitted by the opposite parties. Let learned Standing Counsel seek instructions as to under what authority the structure, if any, existing on the land in question was demolished. Whether any orders were passed after due notice to the petitioner, if not, the reasons therefor. What are the reasons, if it is so, for not allowing the petitioner to use the land in question and raise constructions thereon. Connect along with Writ-C No.6140 of 2024 [Neeraj Kumar Verma vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] and list this case on 09.01.2025 as fresh."

3. On 10.01.2025, we passed the following order:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties no.1 to 4.

2. Rs.5,000/- cost has been provided by Sri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to Sri Sumeet Tahilramani, counsel for the petitioner, who may remit the same to his client.

3. The case of the petitioner is that structure on the petitioner's property was demolished by the Tehsildar, Lekhpal etc. on the instructions of the Chief Development Officer without any notice to the petitioner. The allegation is that this entire illegal exercise has been done at the behest of the telephonic instructions of the Chief Development Officer, Unnao. He relies upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.11.2024 rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2022, In re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures.

4. Sri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has received instructions from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Unnao. A copy of the instructions has been placed before us. The instructions do not mention about any notice to the petitioner before the exercise of demolition. The instructions admit to the demolition. The allegation is that the petitioner was undertaking construction on Gata No.717 which had been gifted to the development block. However, the petitioner is not claiming any right in respect of Gata No.717, rather he is claiming to be the owner of Gata No.716Kha, which he has purchased from one Deep Kumar. The area purchased was 183.04 Sq. Mtrs by a sale deed. Nowhere do the instructions say that any demarcation exercise was done. The instructions says that in spite of letters by the authorities, the petitioner continued to raise construction, which was an open challenge to law and administration accordingly the construction has demolished.

5. The instructions also say that petitioner has concealed the instructions provided by the authorities in the earlier writ petition bearing Writ-C No.6140 of 2024. However, we asked the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as to whether copy of the instructions was provided to the petitioner and if not, then how he was supposed to annex it with the subsequent writ petition or to mention about it. We have perused the order-sheet of Writ-C No.6140 of 2024. It does not refer to any instructions have been received by the learned Standing Counsel or have been informed to the Court in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel says that in the earlier instructions in the writ petition, there is a reference to some identification of the boundaries, however, he was not sure as to whether the petitioner was associated in terms of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or not. More over, the petitioner's counsel says that said demarcation is in favour of the petitioner.

6. In these circumstances, prima facie, it appears that decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) has not had the desired affect upon the authorities at least in this case unless of course contrary is shown to us, which has not been done so far as the instructions provided today to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel are concerned, which we have taken on record.

7. Let Chief Development Officer, Unnao join the proceedings through Video Conferencing, but so far as Station House Officer, Police Station Bighapur, District Unnao, Block Development Officer, Block Sikandarpur Karan, Bighapur, Unnao, Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Unnao and the Lekhpal, Village Achalganj, Tehsil Sadar, District Unnao i.e. opposite parties no.4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 they shall appear in person before this Court and explain as to how they have complied the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.11.2024 rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2022 and also the principles of natural justice and the provisions prescribed in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and other statues in this case and why if they have not complied the same and have demolished any structure of the petitioner illegally, action be not ordered against them apart from imposing heavy cost and compensating the petitioner for the same.

8. All pleas are open for consideration on the next date.

9. List this case as fresh on 17.01.2025.

10. In additional to the aforesaid, let Dasti notice be issued to the petitioner for service upon opposite parties no.5 to 8 through the District Magistrate, Unnao meaning thereby that they shall furnish the notice to the District Magistrate, Unnao, who shall in turn serve it upon the aforesaid officers/persons and submit proof of service before this Court by the next date. This is without prejudice to the obligation of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to communicate our order to the aforesaid parties for their appearance.

11. Senior Registrar of this Court is also directed to communicate our order to the District Magistrate, Unnao and the Chief Development Officer, Unnao, so that the same may be brought to the notice of the concerned authorities for compliance.

12. Office to provide necessary link for Video Conferencing."

4. An affidavit has been filed stating that the Administrative Officer in the office of the District Magistrate, Unnao did not receive the Dasti notices issued by this Court. Learned Standing Counsel says that the officers who were summoned, are present. He has instructions to inform the Court that Administrative Officer is not well. We would like to have an explanation from her in writing as also in person. The affidavit is taken on record.

5. Ms. Shashi Srivastava, Administrative Officer, Unnao shall be impleaded by name during course of the day.

6. Let Dasti notice be issued to the petitioner for service in the office of the District Magistrate, Unnao, who in turn shall ensure service of the same upon the newly impleaded officer, who shall appear before this Court on the next date and show cause as to why she did not accept the Dasti notices issued by this Court as alleged and why action be not ordered/taken against her for this act of defiance.

7. After hearing all of them what comes out, as of now, is that some demarcation exercise was undertaken earlier during which the petitioner, as informed, was present. Based thereon, it was found that the petitioner was raising construction on Gata No.717 which had been donated by one Reeta Mishra in favour of the Block Development, Sikandarpur. It is said that he was informed several times orally not to encroach upon the said land, however, he started the construction, therefore, on

10.12.2024 a notice was sought to be served upon him which he declined to accept it. Accordingly, the notice was pasted on the wall constructed by the petitioner in Gata No.717 by the Block Development and on 12.12.2024 the demolition exercise was undertaken. The demolition which was undertaken, was of the wall and ultimately he would have constructed his roof on the said wall as informed by the Chief Development Officer, Unnao who has joined these proceedings through Video Conferencing.

8. The petitioner's counsel has denied the aforesaid stand of the opposite parties and has relied upon the averments made in the petition and claims that constriction was being undertaken on petitioner's bhumidhari land bearing Gata No.716 Kha. We confronted all the officials with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.11.2024 rendered in a bunch of petitions leading petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of

2022. We in fact read out the relevant paragraphs in the presence of all the officers and confronted them as to how the procedure prescribed therein has been followed. Apparently, as accepted by the learned Standing Counsel and the officials present that the notice which was pasted on the wall was not in terms of the aforesaid judgement, no notice period was mentioned therein nor the earlier demarcation exercise was mentioned nor the nature of the construction being undertaken by the petitioner was mentioned. When we asked the Chief Development Officer, Unnao as to what does he has to say in the matter, he submitted that in spite of repeated oral intimations, the petitioner was attempting to encroach the land and ultimately he started construction of the wall, whereupon a notice was pasted on 10.12.2024 on the wall and thereafter the demolition was undertaken on 12.12.2024 itself and on being asked why reasonable time was not given, the Chef Development Officer submitted that it was because of the apprehension that the petitioner would have constructed the roof and then got a stay order from the Court and that would have made demolition difficult. This is hardly an acceptable explanation rather it is quite objectionable. On being further asked as to how merely because the roof could have been constructed by the petitioner, the demolition would become difficult and how the hypothesis suggested could be the basis for giving a go bye to the law of the land which includes the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred herein- above, he could only repeat what he had stated about his apprehension and could not put forth any plausible explanation as of now. This was the stand of the other officers, who are present. None of them could deny at least as of now that the procedure prescribed in law was not followed.

9. An FIR has been lodged against the petitioner but only on

12.12.2024. No doubt, there is an earlier writ petition by the petitioner and there was no interim order therein, but that is inconsequential.

10. Essentially in this writ petition we are concerned with the demolition exercise undertaken as to whether it is in accordance with law. A procedure has been prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement to ensure avoidance of mala fide and unfair treatment by the State authorities and to ensure that right, if any, of a person is not violated arbitrarily. Had the procedure prescribed or a procedure which was fair, reasonable and analogous to the one prescribed therein been followed, then the officers who are today in the dock may not have faced this situation and much time of the Court would not have been wasted. However, without drawing any conclusive opinion in this regard, but, prima facie, it does appear that the law of land has not been followed, we direct all the officials, including opposite parties no.5 to 8 who are present and have notice of this petition, to file their affidavits in response to the writ petition and also keeping in mind our queries as contained in the earlier order dated 10.01.2025 and the observations made herein above, specially the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above which is binding upon all authorities under Article 144 of the Constitution of India, which they are and were obliged to follow. The affidavit shall also disclose as to whether any proceedings for demarcation of Gata No.717 or Gata No.716 Kha have been undertaken as per Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Rule 22 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. They shall also show cause as to why if it is found that the law of the land has not been followed, then action be not initiated against them in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and cost/compensation if deemed fit and necessary be not imposed upon them.

11. We make it clear that all the observations in the earlier order and this order are, prima facie observations and all pleas are open for consideration at the time of hearing.

12. Let desired affidavits be filed within three weeks. One week thereafter is allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

13. List this case on 17.02.2025, as fresh.

14. The officers who are present today, need not appear again unless specifically called for. . (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Rao/-

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no proceedings were drawn against the petitioner and demolition of structures constructed by the petitioner on the land in question which belong to him has been undertaken. Further no fresh construction is being permitted by the opposite parties. Let learned Standing Counsel seek instructions as to under what authority the structure, if any, existing on the land in question was demolished. Whether any orders were passed after due notice to the petitioner, if not, the reasons therefor. What are the reasons, if it is so, for not allowing the petitioner to use the land in question and raise constructions thereon. Connect along with Writ-C No.6140 of 2024 [Neeraj Kumar Verma vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] and list this case on 09.01.2025 as fresh."

3. On 10.01.2025, we passed the following order:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties no.1 to 4.

2. Rs.5,000/- cost has been provided by Sri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to Sri Sumeet Tahilramani, counsel for the petitioner, who may remit the same to his client.

3. The case of the petitioner is that structure on the petitioner's property was demolished by the Tehsildar, Lekhpal etc. on the instructions of the Chief Development Officer without any notice to the petitioner. The allegation is that this entire illegal exercise has been done at the behest of the telephonic instructions of the Chief Development Officer, Unnao. He relies upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.11.2024 rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2022, In re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures.

4. Sri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has received instructions from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Unnao. A copy of the instructions has been placed before us. The instructions do not mention about any notice to the petitioner before the exercise of demolition. The instructions admit to the demolition. The allegation is that the petitioner was undertaking construction on Gata No.717 which had been gifted to the development block. However, the petitioner is not claiming any right in respect of Gata No.717, rather he is claiming to be the owner of Gata No.716Kha, which he has purchased from one Deep Kumar. The area purchased was 183.04 Sq. Mtrs by a sale deed. Nowhere do the instructions say that any demarcation exercise was done. The instructions says that in spite of letters by the authorities, the petitioner continued to raise construction, which was an open challenge to law and administration accordingly the construction has demolished.

5. The instructions also say that petitioner has concealed the instructions provided by the authorities in the earlier writ petition bearing Writ-C No.6140 of 2024. However, we asked the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as to whether copy of the instructions was provided to the petitioner and if not, then how he was supposed to annex it with the subsequent writ petition or to mention about it. We have perused the order-sheet of Writ-C No.6140 of 2024. It does not refer to any instructions have been received by the learned Standing Counsel or have been informed to the Court in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel says that in the earlier instructions in the writ petition, there is a reference to some identification of the boundaries, however, he was not sure as to whether the petitioner was associated in terms of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or not. More over, the petitioner's counsel says that said demarcation is in favour of the petitioner.

6. In these circumstances, prima facie, it appears that decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) has not had the desired affect upon the authorities at least in this case unless of course contrary is shown to us, which has not been done so far as the instructions provided today to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel are concerned, which we have taken on record.

7. Let Chief Development Officer, Unnao join the proceedings through Video Conferencing, but so far as Station House Officer, Police Station Bighapur, District Unnao, Block Development Officer, Block Sikandarpur Karan, Bighapur, Unnao, Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Unnao and the Lekhpal, Village Achalganj, Tehsil Sadar, District Unnao i.e. opposite parties no.4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 they shall appear in person before this Court and explain as to how they have complied the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.11.2024 rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2022 and also the principles of natural justice and the provisions prescribed in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and other statues in this case and why if they have not complied the same and have demolished any structure of the petitioner illegally, action be not ordered against them apart from imposing heavy cost and compensating the petitioner for the same.

8. All pleas are open for consideration on the next date.

9. List this case as fresh on 17.01.2025.

10. In additional to the aforesaid, let Dasti notice be issued to the petitioner for service upon opposite parties no.5 to 8 through the District Magistrate, Unnao meaning thereby that they shall furnish the notice to the District Magistrate, Unnao, who shall in turn serve it upon the aforesaid officers/persons and submit proof of service before this Court by the next date. This is without prejudice to the obligation of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to communicate our order to the aforesaid parties for their appearance.

11. Senior Registrar of this Court is also directed to communicate our order to the District Magistrate, Unnao and the Chief Development Officer, Unnao, so that the same may be brought to the notice of the concerned authorities for compliance.

12. Office to provide necessary link for Video Conferencing."

4. An affidavit has been filed stating that the Administrative Officer in the office of the District Magistrate, Unnao did not receive the Dasti notices issued by this Court. Learned Standing Counsel says that the officers who were summoned, are present. He has instructions to inform the Court that Administrative Officer is not well. We would like to have an explanation from her in writing as also in person. The affidavit is taken on record.

5. Ms. Shashi Srivastava, Administrative Officer, Unnao shall be impleaded by name during course of the day.

6. Let Dasti notice be issued to the petitioner for service in the office of the District Magistrate, Unnao, who in turn shall ensure service of the same upon the newly impleaded officer, who shall appear before this Court on the next date and show cause as to why she did not accept the Dasti notices issued by this Court as alleged and why action be not ordered/taken against her for this act of defiance.

7. After hearing all of them what comes out, as of now, is that some demarcation exercise was undertaken earlier during which the petitioner, as informed, was present. Based thereon, it was found that the petitioner was raising construction on Gata No.717 which had been donated by one Reeta Mishra in favour of the Block Development, Sikandarpur. It is said that he was informed several times orally not to encroach upon the said land, however, he started the construction, therefore, on

10.12.2024 a notice was sought to be served upon him which he declined to accept it. Accordingly, the notice was pasted on the wall constructed by the petitioner in Gata No.717 by the Block Development and on 12.12.2024 the demolition exercise was undertaken. The demolition which was undertaken, was of the wall and ultimately he would have constructed his roof on the said wall as informed by the Chief Development Officer, Unnao who has joined these proceedings through Video Conferencing.

8. The petitioner's counsel has denied the aforesaid stand of the opposite parties and has relied upon the averments made in the petition and claims that constriction was being undertaken on petitioner's bhumidhari land bearing Gata No.716 Kha. We confronted all the officials with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.11.2024 rendered in a bunch of petitions leading petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of

2022. We in fact read out the relevant paragraphs in the presence of all the officers and confronted them as to how the procedure prescribed therein has been followed. Apparently, as accepted by the learned Standing Counsel and the officials present that the notice which was pasted on the wall was not in terms of the aforesaid judgement, no notice period was mentioned therein nor the earlier demarcation exercise was mentioned nor the nature of the construction being undertaken by the petitioner was mentioned. When we asked the Chief Development Officer, Unnao as to what does he has to say in the matter, he submitted that in spite of repeated oral intimations, the petitioner was attempting to encroach the land and ultimately he started construction of the wall, whereupon a notice was pasted on 10.12.2024 on the wall and thereafter the demolition was undertaken on 12.12.2024 itself and on being asked why reasonable time was not given, the Chef Development Officer submitted that it was because of the apprehension that the petitioner would have constructed the roof and then got a stay order from the Court and that would have made demolition difficult. This is hardly an acceptable explanation rather it is quite objectionable. On being further asked as to how merely because the roof could have been constructed by the petitioner, the demolition would become difficult and how the hypothesis suggested could be the basis for giving a go bye to the law of the land which includes the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred herein- above, he could only repeat what he had stated about his apprehension and could not put forth any plausible explanation as of now. This was the stand of the other officers, who are present. None of them could deny at least as of now that the procedure prescribed in law was not followed.

9. An FIR has been lodged against the petitioner but only on

12.12.2024. No doubt, there is an earlier writ petition by the petitioner and there was no interim order therein, but that is inconsequential.

10. Essentially in this writ petition we are concerned with the demolition exercise undertaken as to whether it is in accordance with law. A procedure has been prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement to ensure avoidance of mala fide and unfair treatment by the State authorities and to ensure that right, if any, of a person is not violated arbitrarily. Had the procedure prescribed or a procedure which was fair, reasonable and analogous to the one prescribed therein been followed, then the officers who are today in the dock may not have faced this situation and much time of the Court would not have been wasted. However, without drawing any conclusive opinion in this regard, but, prima facie, it does appear that the law of land has not been followed, we direct all the officials, including opposite parties no.5 to 8 who are present and have notice of this petition, to file their affidavits in response to the writ petition and also keeping in mind our queries as contained in the earlier order dated 10.01.2025 and the observations made herein above, specially the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above which is binding upon all authorities under Article 144 of the Constitution of India, which they are and were obliged to follow. The affidavit shall also disclose as to whether any proceedings for demarcation of Gata No.717 or Gata No.716 Kha have been undertaken as per Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Rule 22 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. They shall also show cause as to why if it is found that the law of the land has not been followed, then action be not initiated against them in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and cost/compensation if deemed fit and necessary be not imposed upon them.

11. We make it clear that all the observations in the earlier order and this order are, prima facie observations and all pleas are open for consideration at the time of hearing.

12. Let desired affidavits be filed within three weeks. One week thereafter is allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

13. List this case on 17.02.2025, as fresh.

14. The officers who are present today, need not appear again unless specifically called for. . (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Rao/-