High Court · 2025

no.1 was rejected affirming the order passed by respondent no.2 dated 21.03.2024 in proceedings arising under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner no.1 has no concern with the disputed plot in question. It is further urged that the same belongs to the petitioner no.2, whereas no notice was issued to her and the entire proceedings have been taken forward against the petitioner no.1, despite intimating to the respondent no.2 that the petitioner is neither the owner nor in illegal occupation of the disputed plot. It has further been urged that an impression has been given in the order impugned dated 21.03.2024 that the petitioner no.1 did not cross examine the Lekhpal rather he refused to do that and it is in this context that the matter practically was ex parte insofar as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, who has joined the petitioner no.1 by filing the instant writ petition assailing the orders dated 21.03.2024 and

18.10.2024.

4. It is also urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that insofar as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, she is the affected party and apparently no notice was issued to her and the proceedings were ex parte against her. This is reflective of the fact that even Lekhpal, who had gone to visit and make an inspection, also did not ascertain the aforesaid facts and right from issuance of notice till the date when the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 was passed by respondent no.2, the entire proceedings went ahead merely on the basis of surmises and without ascertaining the actual spot position.

5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner no.2 has filed the instant petition assailing the impugned order as the same has an impact on the property of the petitioner no.2 even though the orders have been passed only against petitioner no.1 and for the said reason the proceedings are bad in the eyes of law and as such the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

6. Shri Ajay Kumar Singh Tomar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents, on the basis of written instructions received under the signatures of the Tehsildar, Lalganj, District Raebareli dated 16.01.2025, a copy of which has been provided to the court for perusal and the same is taken on record, indicates that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are related to each other as son and mother. It is further submitted that it was the petitioner no.1 who contested the proceedings before respondent no.2 and at no point of time ever disclosed in his written objections that the disputed construction was that of the petitioner no.2, that is his mother. If the petitioner no.1 had no objection or was not connected with the illegal construction over the disputed land, he ought to have disclosed the facts clearly indicating that the same belongs to his mother and even for reasons best known the mother of petitioner no.1 did not come forward to contest the proceedings despite both staying in the same house, thus it clearly indicates that both the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 were in collusion with each other only to frustrate the proceedings and in the alternate take such sort of hypotechnical objection.

7. It is further submitted by Shri Tomar that even the appeal was not filed by the petitioner no.2 and it is only the petitioner no.1 who has come forward and for the first time the petitioner no.2 has been impleaded and has joined hands with the petitioner no.1 which apparently fortifies the collusion between them and for the said reason the petition deserves to fail.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as well as noticing the extracts of the order sheet, which has been brought on record along with written instructions, is indicative of the fact that the notice was issued to the petitioner no.1 and in the objections filed by the petitioner no.1, which has been taken note of in the impugned order, it clearly indicated that the house/ alleged illegal constructions did not belong to the petitioner no.1. It may be correct that despite the aforesaid plea raised by the petitioners, as noticed above, it would have been appropriate for the petitioner no.2 to have joined in the appeal or even move an application for impleadment in the ongoing proceedings but the same was not done.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not give any cogent reason as to why the petitioner no.2, who was the owner of the constructed house, did not contest the proceedings despite the same was being attended by her son, that is petitioner no.1. However, taking a realistic view this Court finds that the basic fact regarding the inspection with notice to the concerned parties was not available. It has also been pointed out that in the disputed plot in question apart from the petitioner there are others who are also located but the notice, as per learned counsel for the petitioners, has been singled out only against the present petitioners and not others who have taken charge of the disputed plot by raising their constructions which needless to say are unauthorized.

10. Be that as it may, since the notice was not issued to petitioner no.2 nor she participated and considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders may be set aside subject to the deposit of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioners before the respondent no.2 within four weeks from today and upon such deposit the proceedings before the respondent no.2 shall stand restored on its board where the parties shall appear on 24.02.2025.

11. From this point onwards the respondent no.2 shall after making a due inspection with intimation to the petitioner no.2 shall attempt to conclude the proceedings after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of eight weeks. The sum of Rs.50,000/- as deposited shall be further, upon conclusion of the proceedings, forwarded to the District Legal Services Authority.

12. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned orders dated

21.03.2024 and 18.10.2024 are set aside and the petition stands allowed.

13. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the impugned order has been set aside purely on the ground of non grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner no.2. In case if the petitioners do not cooperate in the proceedings or do not appear on the said date as mentioned above, the authority has the right to proceed in accordance with law. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Arnima (Jaspreet Singh, J.) ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

no.1 was rejected affirming the order passed by respondent no.2 dated 21.03.2024 in proceedings arising under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner no.1 has no concern with the disputed plot in question. It is further urged that the same belongs to the petitioner no.2, whereas no notice was issued to her and the entire proceedings have been taken forward against the petitioner no.1, despite intimating to the respondent no.2 that the petitioner is neither the owner nor in illegal occupation of the disputed plot. It has further been urged that an impression has been given in the order impugned dated 21.03.2024 that the petitioner no.1 did not cross examine the Lekhpal rather he refused to do that and it is in this context that the matter practically was ex parte insofar as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, who has joined the petitioner no.1 by filing the instant writ petition assailing the orders dated 21.03.2024 and

18.10.2024.

4. It is also urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that insofar as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, she is the affected party and apparently no notice was issued to her and the proceedings were ex parte against her. This is reflective of the fact that even Lekhpal, who had gone to visit and make an inspection, also did not ascertain the aforesaid facts and right from issuance of notice till the date when the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 was passed by respondent no.2, the entire proceedings went ahead merely on the basis of surmises and without ascertaining the actual spot position.

5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner no.2 has filed the instant petition assailing the impugned order as the same has an impact on the property of the petitioner no.2 even though the orders have been passed only against petitioner no.1 and for the said reason the proceedings are bad in the eyes of law and as such the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

6. Shri Ajay Kumar Singh Tomar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents, on the basis of written instructions received under the signatures of the Tehsildar, Lalganj, District Raebareli dated 16.01.2025, a copy of which has been provided to the court for perusal and the same is taken on record, indicates that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are related to each other as son and mother. It is further submitted that it was the petitioner no.1 who contested the proceedings before respondent no.2 and at no point of time ever disclosed in his written objections that the disputed construction was that of the petitioner no.2, that is his mother. If the petitioner no.1 had no objection or was not connected with the illegal construction over the disputed land, he ought to have disclosed the facts clearly indicating that the same belongs to his mother and even for reasons best known the mother of petitioner no.1 did not come forward to contest the proceedings despite both staying in the same house, thus it clearly indicates that both the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 were in collusion with each other only to frustrate the proceedings and in the alternate take such sort of hypotechnical objection.

7. It is further submitted by Shri Tomar that even the appeal was not filed by the petitioner no.2 and it is only the petitioner no.1 who has come forward and for the first time the petitioner no.2 has been impleaded and has joined hands with the petitioner no.1 which apparently fortifies the collusion between them and for the said reason the petition deserves to fail.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as well as noticing the extracts of the order sheet, which has been brought on record along with written instructions, is indicative of the fact that the notice was issued to the petitioner no.1 and in the objections filed by the petitioner no.1, which has been taken note of in the impugned order, it clearly indicated that the house/ alleged illegal constructions did not belong to the petitioner no.1. It may be correct that despite the aforesaid plea raised by the petitioners, as noticed above, it would have been appropriate for the petitioner no.2 to have joined in the appeal or even move an application for impleadment in the ongoing proceedings but the same was not done.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not give any cogent reason as to why the petitioner no.2, who was the owner of the constructed house, did not contest the proceedings despite the same was being attended by her son, that is petitioner no.1. However, taking a realistic view this Court finds that the basic fact regarding the inspection with notice to the concerned parties was not available. It has also been pointed out that in the disputed plot in question apart from the petitioner there are others who are also located but the notice, as per learned counsel for the petitioners, has been singled out only against the present petitioners and not others who have taken charge of the disputed plot by raising their constructions which needless to say are unauthorized.

10. Be that as it may, since the notice was not issued to petitioner no.2 nor she participated and considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders may be set aside subject to the deposit of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioners before the respondent no.2 within four weeks from today and upon such deposit the proceedings before the respondent no.2 shall stand restored on its board where the parties shall appear on 24.02.2025.

11. From this point onwards the respondent no.2 shall after making a due inspection with intimation to the petitioner no.2 shall attempt to conclude the proceedings after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of eight weeks. The sum of Rs.50,000/- as deposited shall be further, upon conclusion of the proceedings, forwarded to the District Legal Services Authority.

12. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned orders dated

21.03.2024 and 18.10.2024 are set aside and the petition stands allowed.

13. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the impugned order has been set aside purely on the ground of non grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner no.2. In case if the petitioners do not cooperate in the proceedings or do not appear on the said date as mentioned above, the authority has the right to proceed in accordance with law. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Arnima (Jaspreet Singh, J.) ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench