High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned ex- parte judgment and order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No.09896 of 2021, Computerized Case No.T202110460309896, titled Gram Samaj Versus Zurarul as contained in Annexure no.1 to this petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned ex- parte judgment and order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No.6030 of 2015, Computerized Case No. D20151046006030, titled State of U.P. Versus Rajendra Prasad and others as contained in Annexure no.2 to this writ petition, so far the same relates to the petitioners."

3. At the very outset learned Counsel for the petitioners says that inadvertently the prayer no.2, was sought as the same ought not to have been sought in view of the contents of sale deed dated 22.03.1961 and accordingly, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with regard to prayer no.2, which relates to the order dated 17.08.2020 passed in Case No. 6030 of 2015, Computerized Case No. D20151046006030 (State of U.P. Versus Rajendra Prasad and Others).

4. Taking note of the statement of learned Counsel for the petitioners, the instant petition is dismissed so far it relates to prayer no.2.

5. In regard to prayer no.1, this Court took note of the contents of impugned order dated 10.11.2022 passed by opposite party no.3/Assistant Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow, in Case No. 09896/2021, Computerized Case No.T202110460309896 instituted by Gram Samaj against Jasrul, which according the learned Counsel for the petitioner is 'Zurarul Hasan', under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ( in short 'Code of 2006'). For ready reference the order dated 10.11.2022 is extracted hereinunder:- "उपररोक्त ववाद ललेखपवाल / रवाजस्व ननिररीक्षक ककी ररपर्पोट 17.5.2021 अन्तररत धवारवा 67 उ०प्र० रवाजस्व ससंनहितवा 2006 कले आधवार पसंजरीकक त हिहआ। जजसमम उनल्लिजखत हिहै नक प्रनतववादरी जजुसरूल पजुत्र हिसनि ननिववासरी सदरपजुर कररोरवा पररनिवा व तहिसरील मरोहिनिलवालरसंज जजलवा लखनिऊ ककी बसंजर भभूनम रवाटवा ससंख्यवा 692/0.733 हिले0 मम सले रकबवा 0.01380 भभूनम पर अवहैध रूप अवहैध रूप सले पक्कवा ननिमवारण करकले कब्जवा कर जलयवा हिहै जजससले गवाम समवाज करो रू 1,37,28,000/- ककी क्षनत हिहई हिहै। प्रनतववादरी करो आर०सरी० प्रपत्र 20 जवाररी ककी रई, जरो बवाद तवामरीलवा पत्रवावलरी पर रनक्षत हिहै। प्रनतववादरी करो निरोनटस प्रदवानि नकयले जवानिले कले उपरवान्त नि तरो करोई आपजत्ति प्रस्तजुत नकयवा हिहै नि हिरी करोई पजुष्ट सवाक्ष्य दवाजखल नकयवा रयवा हिहै / रवा०ननि० ककी जबनक प्रनतववादरी करो इसकले जलयले पयवारप्त अवसर प्रदवानि नकयवा जवा चजुकवा हिहै। अततः क्षलेत्ररीय ललेखपवाल आख्यवा सले स्पष्ट हिहै नक प्रनतववादरी दवारवा बसंजर ककी भभूनम पर नकयले रयले अवहैध कब्जले सले पजुनष्ट हिरोतरी हिहै। अततः प्रनतववादरी करो गवाम समवाज ककी भभूनम सले बलेदखल करतले हिहयले क्षनतपभूनतर अररोनपत नकयवा जवानिवा उनचततः प्रतरीत हिरोतवा हिहै। अततः क्षलेत्ररीय ललेखपवाल दवारवा प्रस्तजुत ररपरोटर आर०सरी० प्रपत्र 19 धवारवा 67(1) नदनिवासंक 17.5.2021 स्वरीकवार हिरोनिले यरोग्य हिहै तथवा ववादगस्त भभूनम सले नवपक्षरी करो बलेदखल कर अवहैध कब्जवा हिटववानिले व रवासंव सभवा ककी भभूनम बसंजर करो मभूलरूप मम लवानिले कले जलयले उ०प्र० रवाजस्व ससंनहितवा ननियमवावलरी 2016 पहैरवा 67 उपननियम (3) धवारवा 67 (2) मम दरी रयरी व्यवस्थवा कले अनिजुसवार हिरोनिले ववालवा व्यय व क्षनतपभूनतर लरवानिवा न्यवायनहित मम नवजधक हिहै। आदलेश गवाम सदरपजुर कररोरवा पररनिवा व तहिसरील मरोहिनिलवालरसंज जनिपद लखनिऊ सस्थत बसंजर ककी भभूनम रवाटवा ससंख्यवा 692 रकबवा 0.733 हिले0 मम सले रकबवा 0.013 हिले0 पर प्रनतववादरी जजुसरूल पजुत्र हिसनि ननिववासरी सदरपजुर कररोरवा पररनिवा व तहिसरील मरोहिनिलवालरसंज जजलवा लखनिऊ पररनिवा व तहिसरील मरोहिनिलवालरसंज जजलवा लखनिऊ दवारवा नकए रयले अवहैध कब्जले सले बलेदखल करतले हिहए मजु० 1,14,400 /- (रूपयले एक लवाख चचौदहि हिजवार चवार सचौ मवात्र ) क्षनतपभूनतर व 10 ननिष्पवादनि व्यय आयद नकयवा जवातवा हिहै। बवाद बलेदखलरी व वसभूलरी पत्रवावलरी दवाजखल दफ्तर हिरो।"

6. Upon due consideration of impugned order dated 10.11.2022 passed by opposite party no.3/Assistant Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow, this Court finds that present case is squarely covered with the judgment passed in the case of Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online All 829 and in Writ-C No.9500 of 2022, (Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank vs. The Additional District Collector, District Unnao And 2 Others).

7. The procedure, which should be followed while deciding the case instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006, has already been settled by this Court as it would appear from para 74 of the judgment passed in the case of Rishipal Singh (Supra) as also the judgment passed in the case of Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank (Supra). The relevant para 74 of the judgment passed in the case of Rishipal Singh (Supra) reads as under:- "74. Thus, in my view, following guidelines be adopted as procedure to be applied to proceedings under Sections 67,67A and 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code. It is all aimed at ensuring transparency in the procedure, judiciousness in approach by the authorities and to thwart every complaint made with ulterior and oblique motive to dislodge a long settled possession and causing of unnecessary harassment to an innocent villager: (i) In case of complaint made on RC From 19, the official making it shall ensure that proper survey is done in the light of observations made in this judgment; the land, occupation of which has stood identified to be unauthorized is in exact measurement and so also shown in the survey map prepared on scale, as per the Land Revenue Survey Regulations, 1978; the exact assessment of damages on the basis of circle rate with details of calculation made on that basis. (ii) In a case of suo motu action, before issuing RC Form 20, the authority will ensure that proper report upon RC Form 19 is submitted as per para (i) above on parameters of subrule 1 Rule 67. (iii) RC Form 20 must be accompanied by a copy of report and spot survey submitted alongwith RC Form 19 to the person against whom proceedings have been instituted, or even otherwise submitted in case of suo motu action vide para (ii) above. (iv) Upon reply being filed to the notice, if authority finds that spot survey/explanation report is not satisfactory, it may order for a fresh spot report to be prepared in presence of the party aggrieved. (v) In the event, objection includes a plea of statutory protection/ benefit under Section 67-A, the authority should invite the objection from the Gaon Sabha, and will decide the same alongwith the matter under Section 67, without requiring aggrieved party to move separate application under Section 67-A. (vi) If the report is admitted on record, may be in case no objection is filed, the authority must ensure presence of the person preparing the report before it, to prove the report by his statement, with a right to aggrieved party to cross question him. (vii) The authority must endeavour to decide the case within time framed provided under the relevant Act and the Rules and should desist from granting adjournment to the parties in a routine manner. (viii) In case of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, preferred/ filed within the time prescribed alongwith interim relief application, the interim relief application as far as possible should be decided within two weeks' time with prior notice to other side and where plea of settlement under Section 67-A has been taken before Assistant Collector-1st Class, and damages to the tune of 25 % at-least of the total damages are paid and an affidavit of undertaking is filed for not raising any further construction upon the land in question, the authorities including civil administration should avoid taking any coercive measure pursuant to the order appealed against until the disposal of interim relief application. The Appellate authority may also consider granting interim relief on the very first day of filing of appeal with stay application if above conditions are fulfilled by the appellant. (ix) The appellate authority should as far as possible decide the appeal within a period of two months of its presentation."

8. In the judgement passed in the case of Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank (Supra), this Court has observed that the report of lekhpal should be proved as per law and an unproved report cannot be relied upon.

9. A perusal of the order(s) indicate that the procedure, as prescribed by this Court, has not been followed, which is also not in dispute. Accordingly, the order dated 10.11.2022 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tehsildar/Authority concerned, who shall conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

10. For concluding the proceedings, the Tehsildar/Authority concerned shall not provide any adjournment to the petitioner and in case, the petitioner fails to appear on the date fixed, then in that event, the Authority concerned is at liberty to proceed ex-parte, however, in the light of the law laid down by this Court and conclude the proceedings within a period of three months.

11. In case, the present petitioners fail to produce the certified copy of this order before the authority concerned within 15 days from today, the benefit of this order would not be available to the petitioners.

12. With the above observation, the writ petition is partly allowed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Jyoti/-

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned ex- parte judgment and order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No.09896 of 2021, Computerized Case No.T202110460309896, titled Gram Samaj Versus Zurarul as contained in Annexure no.1 to this petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned ex- parte judgment and order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No.6030 of 2015, Computerized Case No. D20151046006030, titled State of U.P. Versus Rajendra Prasad and others as contained in Annexure no.2 to this writ petition, so far the same relates to the petitioners."

3. At the very outset learned Counsel for the petitioners says that inadvertently the prayer no.2, was sought as the same ought not to have been sought in view of the contents of sale deed dated 22.03.1961 and accordingly, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with regard to prayer no.2, which relates to the order dated 17.08.2020 passed in Case No. 6030 of 2015, Computerized Case No. D20151046006030 (State of U.P. Versus Rajendra Prasad and Others).

4. Taking note of the statement of learned Counsel for the petitioners, the instant petition is dismissed so far it relates to prayer no.2.

5. In regard to prayer no.1, this Court took note of the contents of impugned order dated 10.11.2022 passed by opposite party no.3/Assistant Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow, in Case No. 09896/2021, Computerized Case No.T202110460309896 instituted by Gram Samaj against Jasrul, which according the learned Counsel for the petitioner is 'Zurarul Hasan', under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ( in short 'Code of 2006'). For ready reference the order dated 10.11.2022 is extracted hereinunder:- "उपररोक्त ववाद ललेखपवाल / रवाजस्व ननिररीक्षक ककी ररपर्पोट 17.5.2021 अन्तररत धवारवा 67 उ०प्र० रवाजस्व ससंनहितवा 2006 कले आधवार पसंजरीकक त हिहआ। जजसमम उनल्लिजखत हिहै नक प्रनतववादरी जजुसरूल पजुत्र हिसनि ननिववासरी सदरपजुर कररोरवा पररनिवा व तहिसरील मरोहिनिलवालरसंज जजलवा लखनिऊ ककी बसंजर भभूनम रवाटवा ससंख्यवा 692/0.733 हिले0 मम सले रकबवा 0.01380 भभूनम पर अवहैध रूप अवहैध रूप सले पक्कवा ननिमवारण करकले कब्जवा कर जलयवा हिहै जजससले गवाम समवाज करो रू 1,37,28,000/- ककी क्षनत हिहई हिहै। प्रनतववादरी करो आर०सरी० प्रपत्र 20 जवाररी ककी रई, जरो बवाद तवामरीलवा पत्रवावलरी पर रनक्षत हिहै। प्रनतववादरी करो निरोनटस प्रदवानि नकयले जवानिले कले उपरवान्त नि तरो करोई आपजत्ति प्रस्तजुत नकयवा हिहै नि हिरी करोई पजुष्ट सवाक्ष्य दवाजखल नकयवा रयवा हिहै / रवा०ननि० ककी जबनक प्रनतववादरी करो इसकले जलयले पयवारप्त अवसर प्रदवानि नकयवा जवा चजुकवा हिहै। अततः क्षलेत्ररीय ललेखपवाल आख्यवा सले स्पष्ट हिहै नक प्रनतववादरी दवारवा बसंजर ककी भभूनम पर नकयले रयले अवहैध कब्जले सले पजुनष्ट हिरोतरी हिहै। अततः प्रनतववादरी करो गवाम समवाज ककी भभूनम सले बलेदखल करतले हिहयले क्षनतपभूनतर अररोनपत नकयवा जवानिवा उनचततः प्रतरीत हिरोतवा हिहै। अततः क्षलेत्ररीय ललेखपवाल दवारवा प्रस्तजुत ररपरोटर आर०सरी० प्रपत्र 19 धवारवा 67(1) नदनिवासंक 17.5.2021 स्वरीकवार हिरोनिले यरोग्य हिहै तथवा ववादगस्त भभूनम सले नवपक्षरी करो बलेदखल कर अवहैध कब्जवा हिटववानिले व रवासंव सभवा ककी भभूनम बसंजर करो मभूलरूप मम लवानिले कले जलयले उ०प्र० रवाजस्व ससंनहितवा ननियमवावलरी 2016 पहैरवा 67 उपननियम (3) धवारवा 67 (2) मम दरी रयरी व्यवस्थवा कले अनिजुसवार हिरोनिले ववालवा व्यय व क्षनतपभूनतर लरवानिवा न्यवायनहित मम नवजधक हिहै। आदलेश गवाम सदरपजुर कररोरवा पररनिवा व तहिसरील मरोहिनिलवालरसंज जनिपद लखनिऊ सस्थत बसंजर ककी भभूनम रवाटवा ससंख्यवा 692 रकबवा 0.733 हिले0 मम सले रकबवा 0.013 हिले0 पर प्रनतववादरी जजुसरूल पजुत्र हिसनि ननिववासरी सदरपजुर कररोरवा पररनिवा व तहिसरील मरोहिनिलवालरसंज जजलवा लखनिऊ पररनिवा व तहिसरील मरोहिनिलवालरसंज जजलवा लखनिऊ दवारवा नकए रयले अवहैध कब्जले सले बलेदखल करतले हिहए मजु० 1,14,400 /- (रूपयले एक लवाख चचौदहि हिजवार चवार सचौ मवात्र ) क्षनतपभूनतर व 10 ननिष्पवादनि व्यय आयद नकयवा जवातवा हिहै। बवाद बलेदखलरी व वसभूलरी पत्रवावलरी दवाजखल दफ्तर हिरो।"

6. Upon due consideration of impugned order dated 10.11.2022 passed by opposite party no.3/Assistant Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow, this Court finds that present case is squarely covered with the judgment passed in the case of Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online All 829 and in Writ-C No.9500 of 2022, (Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank vs. The Additional District Collector, District Unnao And 2 Others).

7. The procedure, which should be followed while deciding the case instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006, has already been settled by this Court as it would appear from para 74 of the judgment passed in the case of Rishipal Singh (Supra) as also the judgment passed in the case of Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank (Supra). The relevant para 74 of the judgment passed in the case of Rishipal Singh (Supra) reads as under:- "74. Thus, in my view, following guidelines be adopted as procedure to be applied to proceedings under Sections 67,67A and 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code. It is all aimed at ensuring transparency in the procedure, judiciousness in approach by the authorities and to thwart every complaint made with ulterior and oblique motive to dislodge a long settled possession and causing of unnecessary harassment to an innocent villager: (i) In case of complaint made on RC From 19, the official making it shall ensure that proper survey is done in the light of observations made in this judgment; the land, occupation of which has stood identified to be unauthorized is in exact measurement and so also shown in the survey map prepared on scale, as per the Land Revenue Survey Regulations, 1978; the exact assessment of damages on the basis of circle rate with details of calculation made on that basis. (ii) In a case of suo motu action, before issuing RC Form 20, the authority will ensure that proper report upon RC Form 19 is submitted as per para (i) above on parameters of subrule 1 Rule 67. (iii) RC Form 20 must be accompanied by a copy of report and spot survey submitted alongwith RC Form 19 to the person against whom proceedings have been instituted, or even otherwise submitted in case of suo motu action vide para (ii) above. (iv) Upon reply being filed to the notice, if authority finds that spot survey/explanation report is not satisfactory, it may order for a fresh spot report to be prepared in presence of the party aggrieved. (v) In the event, objection includes a plea of statutory protection/ benefit under Section 67-A, the authority should invite the objection from the Gaon Sabha, and will decide the same alongwith the matter under Section 67, without requiring aggrieved party to move separate application under Section 67-A. (vi) If the report is admitted on record, may be in case no objection is filed, the authority must ensure presence of the person preparing the report before it, to prove the report by his statement, with a right to aggrieved party to cross question him. (vii) The authority must endeavour to decide the case within time framed provided under the relevant Act and the Rules and should desist from granting adjournment to the parties in a routine manner. (viii) In case of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, preferred/ filed within the time prescribed alongwith interim relief application, the interim relief application as far as possible should be decided within two weeks' time with prior notice to other side and where plea of settlement under Section 67-A has been taken before Assistant Collector-1st Class, and damages to the tune of 25 % at-least of the total damages are paid and an affidavit of undertaking is filed for not raising any further construction upon the land in question, the authorities including civil administration should avoid taking any coercive measure pursuant to the order appealed against until the disposal of interim relief application. The Appellate authority may also consider granting interim relief on the very first day of filing of appeal with stay application if above conditions are fulfilled by the appellant. (ix) The appellate authority should as far as possible decide the appeal within a period of two months of its presentation."

8. In the judgement passed in the case of Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank (Supra), this Court has observed that the report of lekhpal should be proved as per law and an unproved report cannot be relied upon.

9. A perusal of the order(s) indicate that the procedure, as prescribed by this Court, has not been followed, which is also not in dispute. Accordingly, the order dated 10.11.2022 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tehsildar/Authority concerned, who shall conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

10. For concluding the proceedings, the Tehsildar/Authority concerned shall not provide any adjournment to the petitioner and in case, the petitioner fails to appear on the date fixed, then in that event, the Authority concerned is at liberty to proceed ex-parte, however, in the light of the law laid down by this Court and conclude the proceedings within a period of three months.

11. In case, the present petitioners fail to produce the certified copy of this order before the authority concerned within 15 days from today, the benefit of this order would not be available to the petitioners.

12. With the above observation, the writ petition is partly allowed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Jyoti/-