High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Yadvendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. Proceedings under Section 122-B (4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated against the petitioner in 2012 and by an order dated 18.02.2016, the petitioner was directed to vacate 0.030 hectares area of Gata No. 377. Damages to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- were also imposed upon him. Terming the order to be ex-parte, a recall application was filed which was also dismissed. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred which was dismissed as not maintainable, against which the petitioner preferred Writ-C No. 18095 of 2017 which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Collector to decide the appeal on merits.

3. Pursuant thereto the appeal under Section 67(5) of the Code- 2006 was heard and has been dismissed by the order impugned dated 06.09.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's predecessor in interest was allotted the land in dispute and the initial order passed in 2016 was ex-parte. Further submission is that there is a decree of civil court in relation to the same property and since the suit filed by a private person against the petitioner was dismissed which order/decree of dismissal has attained finality, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed.

5. Per Contra, Sri Shukla submits that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish his claim over the land in dispute which is recorded as a pond. Referring to the civil court's decree, it is contended that the Gaon Sabha was not a party to the same and, even otherwise, there is no decree in favor of the petitioner, rather his own defense before the civil court was in favor of the Gaon Sabha and the property was alleged to be belonging to Gaon Sabha.

6. Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel submits that any decree drawn inter se private parties would not be binding upon Gaon Sabha and since the petitioner failed to lead any evidence in the proceedings, no error has been committed by the authorities in deciding the matter against the petitioner.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that one Yogendra Pal Singh filed O.S. No. 354 of 2010, in which the petitioner was defendant no. 2. An issue, being issue no. 1, was framed as to whether the land in dispute belongs to Gaon Sabha. Although the plaintiff could not establish encroachment made by the petitioner over the land in dispute, the judgment of the civil court reveals that the petitioner himself had come up with a stand that land covered by Gata No. 377 belongs to Gaon Sabha to the extent indicated in his written statement. The civil court dismissed the suit on 28.04.2017 recording a finding that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and Gaon Sabha being necessary party, the suit also suffered from the defect of non-joinder of necessary party.

8. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that any decree of dismissal inter se private parties would not bind Gaon Sabha and, even otherwise, since the petitioner himself came up with a defense that land belongs to Gaon Sabha, unless any contrary evidence to the extent of area legally belonging to the petitioner could be brought on record, the petitioner cannot assail the validity of the orders impugned, whereby direction for his dispossession in respect of 0.030 hectares of land covered by Gata no. 377 has been issued.

9. As far as the submission that the order of 2016 was ex-parte, a perusal of the same would show that the petitioner participated in the proceedings and when the matter was going to be decided, twice he filed transfer applications before the Collector, but the applications were rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Commissioner, who also dismissed another transfer application in the year 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner did not attend the proceedings and, therefore, the order dated 08.02.2016 was passed against him. Restoration application filed against the same was also dismissed and then the matter, after intervention of this Court, was heard in appeal. The Collector Etah has considered all these submissions advanced by the petitioner.

10. The Collector has, after perusal of record, arrived at a conclusion that the proceedings decided against the petitioner were not ex-parte and insofar as the claim qua the land in concerned, no evidence has been led by the petitioner.

11. Even before this Court, the petitioner has failed to dispute the correctness of the findings recorded in the orders impugned and as far as reliance placed upon Patta is concerned, Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition does not indicate either the Gata number or the area and, hence, this Court is not in a position to connect the document to the claim set up by the petitioner.

12. In view of the above discussion, more specifically the stand taken by the petitioner before civil court and in absence of any cogent material to hold that the petitioner is lawful occupant over 0.030 hectares of land covered by Gata No. 377, this Court does not find any error in any of the orders impugned.

13. However, considering the fact that the matter, at one stage, was decided in favor of the petitioner only as regards maintainability of an appeal, under the order of this Court, imposition of damages to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- appears to be too harsh and in the facts of the case this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the same inasmuch as in the order impugned itself it is mentioned that necessity to cross-examine the Lekhpal was not felt proper as the petitioner was found to be encroacher over the pond. This little infirmity in the order impugned though may infer some procedural flaw, nevertheless, the same, in itself, is not sufficient to grant indulgence in favor of the petitioner.

14. In view of the above, the orders impugned to the extent of dispossession of the petitioner are upheld, however, the same are modified to the extent on reducing the damages from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-.

15. The petitioner shall deposit damages of Rs. 10,000/- before the concerned respondent within the period of two months from today and shall vacate 0.030 hectares of land covered by Gata No. 377 within the next 30 days, failing which the respondents shall be competent to use force for dispossession of the petitioner and take coercive measures for realization of the damages through process of law.

16. The writ petition is, according, disposed of. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Pkb/ PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Yadvendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. Proceedings under Section 122-B (4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated against the petitioner in 2012 and by an order dated 18.02.2016, the petitioner was directed to vacate 0.030 hectares area of Gata No. 377. Damages to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- were also imposed upon him. Terming the order to be ex-parte, a recall application was filed which was also dismissed. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred which was dismissed as not maintainable, against which the petitioner preferred Writ-C No. 18095 of 2017 which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Collector to decide the appeal on merits.

3. Pursuant thereto the appeal under Section 67(5) of the Code- 2006 was heard and has been dismissed by the order impugned dated 06.09.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's predecessor in interest was allotted the land in dispute and the initial order passed in 2016 was ex-parte. Further submission is that there is a decree of civil court in relation to the same property and since the suit filed by a private person against the petitioner was dismissed which order/decree of dismissal has attained finality, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed.

5. Per Contra, Sri Shukla submits that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish his claim over the land in dispute which is recorded as a pond. Referring to the civil court's decree, it is contended that the Gaon Sabha was not a party to the same and, even otherwise, there is no decree in favor of the petitioner, rather his own defense before the civil court was in favor of the Gaon Sabha and the property was alleged to be belonging to Gaon Sabha.

6. Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel submits that any decree drawn inter se private parties would not be binding upon Gaon Sabha and since the petitioner failed to lead any evidence in the proceedings, no error has been committed by the authorities in deciding the matter against the petitioner.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that one Yogendra Pal Singh filed O.S. No. 354 of 2010, in which the petitioner was defendant no. 2. An issue, being issue no. 1, was framed as to whether the land in dispute belongs to Gaon Sabha. Although the plaintiff could not establish encroachment made by the petitioner over the land in dispute, the judgment of the civil court reveals that the petitioner himself had come up with a stand that land covered by Gata No. 377 belongs to Gaon Sabha to the extent indicated in his written statement. The civil court dismissed the suit on 28.04.2017 recording a finding that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and Gaon Sabha being necessary party, the suit also suffered from the defect of non-joinder of necessary party.

8. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that any decree of dismissal inter se private parties would not bind Gaon Sabha and, even otherwise, since the petitioner himself came up with a defense that land belongs to Gaon Sabha, unless any contrary evidence to the extent of area legally belonging to the petitioner could be brought on record, the petitioner cannot assail the validity of the orders impugned, whereby direction for his dispossession in respect of 0.030 hectares of land covered by Gata no. 377 has been issued.

9. As far as the submission that the order of 2016 was ex-parte, a perusal of the same would show that the petitioner participated in the proceedings and when the matter was going to be decided, twice he filed transfer applications before the Collector, but the applications were rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Commissioner, who also dismissed another transfer application in the year 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner did not attend the proceedings and, therefore, the order dated 08.02.2016 was passed against him. Restoration application filed against the same was also dismissed and then the matter, after intervention of this Court, was heard in appeal. The Collector Etah has considered all these submissions advanced by the petitioner.

10. The Collector has, after perusal of record, arrived at a conclusion that the proceedings decided against the petitioner were not ex-parte and insofar as the claim qua the land in concerned, no evidence has been led by the petitioner.

11. Even before this Court, the petitioner has failed to dispute the correctness of the findings recorded in the orders impugned and as far as reliance placed upon Patta is concerned, Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition does not indicate either the Gata number or the area and, hence, this Court is not in a position to connect the document to the claim set up by the petitioner.

12. In view of the above discussion, more specifically the stand taken by the petitioner before civil court and in absence of any cogent material to hold that the petitioner is lawful occupant over 0.030 hectares of land covered by Gata No. 377, this Court does not find any error in any of the orders impugned.

13. However, considering the fact that the matter, at one stage, was decided in favor of the petitioner only as regards maintainability of an appeal, under the order of this Court, imposition of damages to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- appears to be too harsh and in the facts of the case this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the same inasmuch as in the order impugned itself it is mentioned that necessity to cross-examine the Lekhpal was not felt proper as the petitioner was found to be encroacher over the pond. This little infirmity in the order impugned though may infer some procedural flaw, nevertheless, the same, in itself, is not sufficient to grant indulgence in favor of the petitioner.

14. In view of the above, the orders impugned to the extent of dispossession of the petitioner are upheld, however, the same are modified to the extent on reducing the damages from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-.

15. The petitioner shall deposit damages of Rs. 10,000/- before the concerned respondent within the period of two months from today and shall vacate 0.030 hectares of land covered by Gata No. 377 within the next 30 days, failing which the respondents shall be competent to use force for dispossession of the petitioner and take coercive measures for realization of the damages through process of law.

16. The writ petition is, according, disposed of. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Pkb/ PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad