Uma Shankar v. State of U.P. and
Case Details
Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1687 of 2023 Petitioner :- Uma Shanker Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Utsav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Utsav, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Azad Rai, counsel for respondent no.5/gaon sabha and the learned standing counsel for state - respondent. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 6.1.2023, passed by respondent no.3Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Manjhanpur, Kaushambi as well as for mandamus, directing respondent no.3 to conclude the demarcation proceeding under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in respect to Arazi No.518 & 718. It is also prayed that status quo be maintained in respect of petitioner's construction till the disposal of the proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Decision
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been filed by the petitioner which is pending but the authorities concerned are adamant to demolish the construction of the petitioner on the basis of an order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is also submitted that this Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has observed that the petitioner can approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance in the proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The final order passed by this Court on 24.09.2021 in Writ C. No. 41909 of 2018 Uma Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others in respect to proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code is as follows:- "Shri Utsav, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Yanendra Pandey, learned counsel for respondent and learned Standing Counsel are present. This Court has passed an order on 13.3.2019 and relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereinafter :- "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that orders passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, have grave consequences inasmuch as houses have to be demolished. Under such circumstances, I direct that the Appellate Court under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, may look into the report and the order submitted by the Demarcation Team dated 14.11.2018 and may independently decide the matter as an appellate court. This exercise may be completed by the Appellate Court under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Till such time as the Appellate Court decides the matter, the impugned order dated 25.9.2018 passed by the Tehsildar and the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Appellate Court shall remain stayed. Learned Standing Counsel may place the order which would now be passed by the Appellate Court under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, on 23.4.2019. List this case on 24.4.2019." In pursuance of the above referred order, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Appeal No.00692 of 2019 (Uma Shankar vs. Gaon Sabha) bearing Computerized Case No.C201902000000692 before the Additional Commissioner under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, however, the same was rejected by an order dated 16.8.2019 on the ground that the Appellate Court would be the Court of Collector. The petitioner has not placed the said order before this Court even though this matter was listed as many as on 5 dates after the said order was passed. It appears that petitioner is taking unnecessary advantage of the interim order passed by this Court, as referred above. I have perused the impugned orders, whereby, proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were allowed considering that the petitioner was in unauthorized possession on the land of Gaon Sabha which is entered as Rasta in the revenue records. The Appellate Court also rejected the Appeal on the ground that on the basis of the spot report, it was found that petitioner was in illegal occupation on land of the Gaon Sabha. This Court has passed the interim order dated 13.3.2019 to give opportunity to petitioner to get the land demarcated under the provisions of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by directing the Appellate Court. However, petitioner has not even disclosed the outcome of the proceedings, therefore, he has suppressed relevant facts and thus not acted bonafidely. At present, no document is placed on record in support of the submission that the land in question belongs to the petitioner and not to the Gaon Sabha, therefore, prayers made in this writ petition are rejected. However, considering above interim order, passed by this Court, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Competent Authority under Section 24 to ventilate his grievance regarding the dispute of boundaries, if so advised. In view of the above, this writ petition is finally disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated." On the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of ejectment and damages, passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been disposed of, only with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance in a proceeding under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, no protection can be granted against the impugned notice dated 6.1.2023. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. There is no dispute about the fact that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before respondent no.2 which will go to the root of the matter. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that proceedings under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated by the petitioner in order to demonstrate that petitioner's construction is in the abadi plot and the same will not come in Gaon Sabha plot should be decided forthwith as the order for ejectment and damages, passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is operating against petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2 to decide the aforesaid proceedings under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to its logical conclusion, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 weeks, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, after giving opportunity to the parties concerned, in accordance with law so that petitioner's claim may not be defeated. Order Date :- 20.1.2023 C.Prakash Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad