High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- the Assistant "(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus Collector/Tehsildar Tehsil- commanding Thakurdwara District-Moradabad respondent no.3/ to restore the possession of petitioner over the land in dispute bearing plot no. 395M area 0.199 hectare of Khata No. 973 situated at Village- Surjan Nagar, Tehsil-Thakurdwara, District- Moradabad which was allotted to him in the year 2003. (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take appropriate action and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 30-11-2024 within time bound period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition)."

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that lease was granted to the petitioner in the year 2003 and the petitioner was put in possession over the lease land. In the year 2023, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 dispossessed the petitioner. In this regard the petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate to put him back in possession after removing the possession of respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Section 129 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is quoted as under: "129. Restoration of possession to allottee or the Government lessee. (1)Where any person is admitted to any land in accordance with Section 125, or where any land is let out to any person by the State Government and any person, other than the allottee or lessee, is in occupation of such land in contravention of the provisions of this Code, the Assistant Collector may, of his own motion, and shall, on the application of the allottee of the lessee, as the case may be, put him in possession of such land, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as he considers necessary. (2)The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (8) of Section 65 shall mutatis mutandies apply in relation to reoccupation of any land or part thereof after possession has been delivered under sub-section (1)." Sub-section (2) of Section 129 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that provisions of sub-Sections (2) to (8) of Section 65 shall apply in relation to re-occupation of land or any part thereof after possession has been delivered under sub-Section (1). Section 65 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted as under:- "65. Delivery of possession to allottee: (1) Where any land referred in Section 63 has been allotted for building a house under Section 64, and any person other than an allottee is in occupation of such land in contravention of the provisions of this Code, the Sub-Divisional Officer may, of his own motion and shall, on the application of the allottee, put the allottee in possession of such land, and may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as he may consider necessary. (2) Where any person, after being evicted under this section, reoccupies the land or any part thereof, without lawful authority, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years but which shall not be less than three months and also with fine which may extend to three thousands rupees : Provided that the Court convicting the accused may, while passing the sentence, direct that the whole or such portion of the fine that may be recovered as the Court considers proper be paid to the allottee as damages for use and occupation. (3) Where in any proceeding under sub-section (2), the Court, at any stage after cognizance of the case has been taken, is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that - (a) the accused is in occupation of the land to which such proceeding relates, in contravention of the provisions of this Code, (b) the allottee is entitled to the possession of such land, the Court may, summarily, evict the accused from such land pending the final determination of the case, and may put the allottee in possession of such land. (4) Where in any proceeding under sub-section (2), the accused is convicted, the interim order passed under sub-section (3) shall be confirmed by the Court. (5) Where, in any proceeding under sub-section (2), the accused is acquitted or discharged and the Court is satisfied that the person so acquitted or discharged is entitled to be put back in possession over such land, the Court shall, on the application of such person, direct that delivery of possession be made to him. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence under sub-section (2) may be tried summarily. (7) For the purpose of speedy trial or offences under this section, the State Government, may in consultation with the High Court, by notification constitute special Courts each consisting of an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisonal Magistrate, who shall, subject to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, exercise, in relation to such offence, the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under sub-section (2) shall be cognizable and non-bailable."

4. From the perusal of the provisions, it is apparent that the provision is meant, in case, after an allotment of land, the person is found in possession over the allotted land then, such a person has to be removed and the allottee is to be put in possession over the land allotted to him. If such a person, who has been evicted under sub-Clause (1) re-occupies the land, then only provisions of sub- Sections (2) to (8) of Section 65 will apply. Even under Section 65 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the power to put the allottee in possession, is vested only with the criminal court. There is no averment in the writ petition that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were evicted from the land in dispute after the allotment of land to the petitioner and they had reoccupied the land after their eviction and therefore, the provisions of Section 65 read with sub-Section (2) of Section 129 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will not apply. The purpose of this Section is not, in case, an allottee is evicted after twenty years by the private respondents then, he will be put in possession by the revenue authorities in exercise of powers under Section 129 read with Section 65 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. Learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that petitioner can move an appropriate application under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for restoration of his possession or under the provisions of Specific Relief Act for possession.

6. In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available to him under law. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- the Assistant "(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus Collector/Tehsildar Tehsil- commanding Thakurdwara District-Moradabad respondent no.3/ to restore the possession of petitioner over the land in dispute bearing plot no. 395M area 0.199 hectare of Khata No. 973 situated at Village- Surjan Nagar, Tehsil-Thakurdwara, District- Moradabad which was allotted to him in the year 2003. (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take appropriate action and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 30-11-2024 within time bound period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition)."

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that lease was granted to the petitioner in the year 2003 and the petitioner was put in possession over the lease land. In the year 2023, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 dispossessed the petitioner. In this regard the petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate to put him back in possession after removing the possession of respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Section 129 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is quoted as under: "129. Restoration of possession to allottee or the Government lessee. (1)Where any person is admitted to any land in accordance with Section 125, or where any land is let out to any person by the State Government and any person, other than the allottee or lessee, is in occupation of such land in contravention of the provisions of this Code, the Assistant Collector may, of his own motion, and shall, on the application of the allottee of the lessee, as the case may be, put him in possession of such land, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as he considers necessary. (2)The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (8) of Section 65 shall mutatis mutandies apply in relation to reoccupation of any land or part thereof after possession has been delivered under sub-section (1)." Sub-section (2) of Section 129 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that provisions of sub-Sections (2) to (8) of Section 65 shall apply in relation to re-occupation of land or any part thereof after possession has been delivered under sub-Section (1). Section 65 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted as under:- "65. Delivery of possession to allottee: (1) Where any land referred in Section 63 has been allotted for building a house under Section 64, and any person other than an allottee is in occupation of such land in contravention of the provisions of this Code, the Sub-Divisional Officer may, of his own motion and shall, on the application of the allottee, put the allottee in possession of such land, and may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as he may consider necessary. (2) Where any person, after being evicted under this section, reoccupies the land or any part thereof, without lawful authority, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years but which shall not be less than three months and also with fine which may extend to three thousands rupees : Provided that the Court convicting the accused may, while passing the sentence, direct that the whole or such portion of the fine that may be recovered as the Court considers proper be paid to the allottee as damages for use and occupation. (3) Where in any proceeding under sub-section (2), the Court, at any stage after cognizance of the case has been taken, is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that - (a) the accused is in occupation of the land to which such proceeding relates, in contravention of the provisions of this Code, (b) the allottee is entitled to the possession of such land, the Court may, summarily, evict the accused from such land pending the final determination of the case, and may put the allottee in possession of such land. (4) Where in any proceeding under sub-section (2), the accused is convicted, the interim order passed under sub-section (3) shall be confirmed by the Court. (5) Where, in any proceeding under sub-section (2), the accused is acquitted or discharged and the Court is satisfied that the person so acquitted or discharged is entitled to be put back in possession over such land, the Court shall, on the application of such person, direct that delivery of possession be made to him. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence under sub-section (2) may be tried summarily. (7) For the purpose of speedy trial or offences under this section, the State Government, may in consultation with the High Court, by notification constitute special Courts each consisting of an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisonal Magistrate, who shall, subject to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, exercise, in relation to such offence, the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under sub-section (2) shall be cognizable and non-bailable."

4. From the perusal of the provisions, it is apparent that the provision is meant, in case, after an allotment of land, the person is found in possession over the allotted land then, such a person has to be removed and the allottee is to be put in possession over the land allotted to him. If such a person, who has been evicted under sub-Clause (1) re-occupies the land, then only provisions of sub- Sections (2) to (8) of Section 65 will apply. Even under Section 65 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the power to put the allottee in possession, is vested only with the criminal court. There is no averment in the writ petition that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were evicted from the land in dispute after the allotment of land to the petitioner and they had reoccupied the land after their eviction and therefore, the provisions of Section 65 read with sub-Section (2) of Section 129 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will not apply. The purpose of this Section is not, in case, an allottee is evicted after twenty years by the private respondents then, he will be put in possession by the revenue authorities in exercise of powers under Section 129 read with Section 65 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. Learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that petitioner can move an appropriate application under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for restoration of his possession or under the provisions of Specific Relief Act for possession.

6. In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available to him under law. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)