Gram Sabha Ufrauli v. Ghanshyam and another)

Heard Sri Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned State counsel. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing Notice dated 31.12.2024 issued under Section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 by Opposite Party No. 4 and the consequential proceedings registered as Case No. Case No.209046 (in re: Gram Sabha Ufrauli Vs Ghanshyam and another) with all consequential benefits. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkarnagar to expedite hearing of Application under Section 101 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 and pass a final order within the stipulated time as this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to fix." There is consensus between the parties that the dispute involved in this case is covered by the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 25735 (M/S) of 2020 (C/M S.N. Public School Thru. Irs Manager Smt. Sumitra vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Principal Secretary,Revenue,Lko. & Ors.). The order dated 04.01.2021 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State respondent, Sri Tej Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 and Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the matter is being finally decided at the admission stage. Under challenge is the order dated 08.12.2020 passed under the provision of Section 67 (5) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Code, 2006") whereby the competent authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Also under challenge the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the respondent no. 4 i.e Tehsildar, Tehsil- Milkipur, District- Ayodhya, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition under the provision of Section 67 (1) of the Code, 2006 whereby the petitioner having found to have encroached upon public utility land bearing Gata No. 2344 measuring 0.1920 hectare has been directed to vacate the same and pay compensation and cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his application for exchange of the public utility land which is private land was filed before the competent authority but came to be rejected on 15.01.2020. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed a revision bearing Revision No. 00135/2020 Inre; S.N. Public School Vs. Land Management Committee and anr which is pending before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is every likelihood of the aforesaid revision being allowed and contends that in case the exchange is permitted then the order passed by the Tehsildar whereby directing the petitioner to vacate the said land and to pay cost and compensation would become redundant in the eyes of law. It is also contended that during pendency of the aforesaid revision there would not be any occasion for the respondents to proceed further with the order, as in case the revision is allowed and at the same time the petitioner is directed to vacate the said land and to pay cost and compensation he would suffer irreparable harm and injury. On the other hand, learned Standing, Sri Ajad Khan and Sri Tej Singh contend that in the proceedings lodged against the petitioner under the provision of Section 67 of the Code, 2006, the petitioner had been found to have encroached upon the public utility land. Though the application of the petitioner for exchange of his land has already been rejected yet no order has been passed in the revision which has been filed by the petitioner against the said order and consequently, merely because the revision is pending, there would not be any occasion for the respondents to not proceed further in pursuance to the impugned orders dated 26.08.2020 and 08.12.2020. Learned Standing counsel also submits that as per his instructions the petitioner is repeatedly seeking adjournment in the said revision whereby keeping it pending and on the other hand presses for stay of the impugned orders. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that no adjournment shall be sought on any pretext whatsoever before the Court of the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya where the aforesaid revision is pending. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the records what comes out is that the revision against the order by which the petitioner's application for exchange of public land with his private land is admittedly pending before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya. Thus, prima facie there would not be any occasion for the respondents to proceed further with the impugned orders till such time the aforesaid revision is decided. Taking into consideration the aforesaid situation, the present writ petition is disposed of by keeping the impugned orders dated 08.12.2020 and 26.08.2020, copies of which are annexure 1 and 2 to the writ petition in abeyance till disposal of the aforesaid Revision No. 00135/2020. The undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also recorded of not seeking any adjournment in the aforesaid revision. It is also provided that in case any adjournment is sought by the petitioner on any pretext whatsoever before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya then the benefit of this order shall not be available and the respondent shall proceed further in pursuance to the aforesaid impugned orders. It is also directed that the aforesaid revision shall be decided expeditiously by the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya in accordance with law." From the above quoted order dated 04.01.2021, it is apparent that before this Court in Writ Petition No. 25735 (M/S) of 2020, the orders dated 08.12.2020 and 26.08.2020 passed in exercise of power under Sections 67(1) and 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), respectively, were challenged and the same were kept in abeyance till disposal of the revision, wherein, the order passed under Section 101 of the Code of 2006 was challenged. In the instant case, the proceedings instituted under Section 101 of the Code of 2006 registered as Case No. T202404040202139 (Shyam Lal Verma vs. Gram Panchayat and others) is pending consideration. Taking note of the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the Authority concerned that till disposal of the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 101 of the Code of 2006 registered as Case No. T202404040202139 (Shyam Lal Verma vs. Gram Panchayat and others), the proceedings, in issue, initiated in terms of Section 67 of the Code of 2006 shall be kept in abeyance. A direction is also issued to the Authority concerned to conclude the proceedings pending as Case No. T202404040202139 (Shyam Lal Verma vs. Gram Panchayat and others) most expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the next date fixed in the case, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is after taking note of para 479 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, which deals with conclusion of summary proceedings. For the purposes of conclusion of proceedings within the time specified hereinabove, the Authority concerned shall avoid unnecessary adjournments on behalf of the Gram Sabha/State. It is in view of the fact that the petitioner's counsel undertakes that the applicant-petitioner would not take any adjournment. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned State counsel. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing Notice dated 31.12.2024 issued under Section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 by Opposite Party No. 4 and the consequential proceedings registered as Case No. Case No.209046 (in re: Gram Sabha Ufrauli Vs Ghanshyam and another) with all consequential benefits. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkarnagar to expedite hearing of Application under Section 101 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 and pass a final order within the stipulated time as this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to fix." There is consensus between the parties that the dispute involved in this case is covered by the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 25735 (M/S) of 2020 (C/M S.N. Public School Thru. Irs Manager Smt. Sumitra vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Principal Secretary,Revenue,Lko. & Ors.). The order dated 04.01.2021 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State respondent, Sri Tej Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 and Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the matter is being finally decided at the admission stage. Under challenge is the order dated 08.12.2020 passed under the provision of Section 67 (5) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Code, 2006") whereby the competent authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Also under challenge the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the respondent no. 4 i.e Tehsildar, Tehsil- Milkipur, District- Ayodhya, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition under the provision of Section 67 (1) of the Code, 2006 whereby the petitioner having found to have encroached upon public utility land bearing Gata No. 2344 measuring 0.1920 hectare has been directed to vacate the same and pay compensation and cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his application for exchange of the public utility land which is private land was filed before the competent authority but came to be rejected on 15.01.2020. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed a revision bearing Revision No. 00135/2020 Inre; S.N. Public School Vs. Land Management Committee and anr which is pending before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is every likelihood of the aforesaid revision being allowed and contends that in case the exchange is permitted then the order passed by the Tehsildar whereby directing the petitioner to vacate the said land and to pay cost and compensation would become redundant in the eyes of law. It is also contended that during pendency of the aforesaid revision there would not be any occasion for the respondents to proceed further with the order, as in case the revision is allowed and at the same time the petitioner is directed to vacate the said land and to pay cost and compensation he would suffer irreparable harm and injury. On the other hand, learned Standing, Sri Ajad Khan and Sri Tej Singh contend that in the proceedings lodged against the petitioner under the provision of Section 67 of the Code, 2006, the petitioner had been found to have encroached upon the public utility land. Though the application of the petitioner for exchange of his land has already been rejected yet no order has been passed in the revision which has been filed by the petitioner against the said order and consequently, merely because the revision is pending, there would not be any occasion for the respondents to not proceed further in pursuance to the impugned orders dated 26.08.2020 and 08.12.2020. Learned Standing counsel also submits that as per his instructions the petitioner is repeatedly seeking adjournment in the said revision whereby keeping it pending and on the other hand presses for stay of the impugned orders. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that no adjournment shall be sought on any pretext whatsoever before the Court of the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya where the aforesaid revision is pending. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the records what comes out is that the revision against the order by which the petitioner's application for exchange of public land with his private land is admittedly pending before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya. Thus, prima facie there would not be any occasion for the respondents to proceed further with the impugned orders till such time the aforesaid revision is decided. Taking into consideration the aforesaid situation, the present writ petition is disposed of by keeping the impugned orders dated 08.12.2020 and 26.08.2020, copies of which are annexure 1 and 2 to the writ petition in abeyance till disposal of the aforesaid Revision No. 00135/2020. The undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also recorded of not seeking any adjournment in the aforesaid revision. It is also provided that in case any adjournment is sought by the petitioner on any pretext whatsoever before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya then the benefit of this order shall not be available and the respondent shall proceed further in pursuance to the aforesaid impugned orders. It is also directed that the aforesaid revision shall be decided expeditiously by the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya in accordance with law." From the above quoted order dated 04.01.2021, it is apparent that before this Court in Writ Petition No. 25735 (M/S) of 2020, the orders dated 08.12.2020 and 26.08.2020 passed in exercise of power under Sections 67(1) and 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), respectively, were challenged and the same were kept in abeyance till disposal of the revision, wherein, the order passed under Section 101 of the Code of 2006 was challenged. In the instant case, the proceedings instituted under Section 101 of the Code of 2006 registered as Case No. T202404040202139 (Shyam Lal Verma vs. Gram Panchayat and others) is pending consideration. Taking note of the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the Authority concerned that till disposal of the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 101 of the Code of 2006 registered as Case No. T202404040202139 (Shyam Lal Verma vs. Gram Panchayat and others), the proceedings, in issue, initiated in terms of Section 67 of the Code of 2006 shall be kept in abeyance. A direction is also issued to the Authority concerned to conclude the proceedings pending as Case No. T202404040202139 (Shyam Lal Verma vs. Gram Panchayat and others) most expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the next date fixed in the case, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is after taking note of para 479 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, which deals with conclusion of summary proceedings. For the purposes of conclusion of proceedings within the time specified hereinabove, the Authority concerned shall avoid unnecessary adjournments on behalf of the Gram Sabha/State. It is in view of the fact that the petitioner's counsel undertakes that the applicant-petitioner would not take any adjournment. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench