Ram Autar vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 to 3.

2. The petitioner is an ex-servicemen and was allotted land no.892/1 biswa by the Gram Pradhan for constructing house on the residential purposes and petitioner constructed his house and is still living with his entire family members. On the basis of wrong and baseless report of Lekhpal due to enmity, a case was registered under Section 122B U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the petitioner in the court of Tehsildar and Tehsildar imposed penalty against the petitioner. The petitioner filed revision against the order dated 28.8.2002 in the Court of Additional Collector which was allowed and the same was remanded back for fresh decision vide order dated 31.7.2002. The case was not considered and dismissed on 16.1.2003 and the petitioner also filed revision in the court of Additional Collector which was also dismissed as not maintainable, against which the present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 16.1.2003, 27.8.2004 and 6.6.2005 passed by respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.

3. Due to death of Shri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, notice was issued to respondent no.4 and as per the office report dated

1.5.2025, notice has been found sufficient upon respondent no.4. 2 WRIC No. 1003937 of 2005

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has constructed house and is in possession since 30.1.1978, therefore instead of eviction from the property in dispute appropriate remedy was to impose damages upon the petitioner and to regularize the lease.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that Suit No.34/2006 titled 'Ram Autar v. Mahadev and others) was filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, District Hardoi in the year 2006 which was decreed vide judgment and order dated 10.10.2007 directing not to interfere the possession of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that after dismissal of the revision by the Additional Commissioner on 6.6.2005, suit was filed and the permanent injunction was also granted.

7. In support of his submission that instead eviction from the land in dispute, damages would be awarded to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon following judgments: (i) Manno Prasad v. Upper Collector (Prashasan), Kanpur Dehat and another reported in 2009(27) LCD 812 (ii) D.C.M. Limited v. The Collector, Ghaziabad and others reported in 2007(25)LCD 1194

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the impugned orders do not suffer from infirmity or illegality and are just and valid orders.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record as well as case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. It is admitted case of the parties in the writ petition that interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner, which is extracted hereinbelow: "Notices on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 3 have been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, while notice on behalf of opposite party no.4 has been accepted by Sri R.N. Gupta. 3 WRIC No. 1003937 of 2005 Let counter affidavit be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks. List thereafter. Till the date of next listing, status quo as exists today with regard to possession in respect of the plot in question shall be maintained by the parties."

11. In pursuance to the above-extracted interim order, the petitioner is in possession on the land of the Gaon Sabha since 30.1.1978.

12. Learned counsel for the has cited the the following judgment, operative portion of which is extracted hereinbelow: (i) Manno Prasad (supra):-

3. In proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act, the evidence of the Lekhpal and other witnesses was taken and it was found that the constructions raised by the petitioner was an old one. The Tehsildar found that the petitioner was using the land for residential purposes and that the construction was an old one and consequently discharged the notice under Section 122-B of the Act. The Tehsildar, further directed that the Gaon Sabha may file a suit, if they are so advised.

5. The Gaon Sabha holds the land for the benefit of the residents of the villagers and, from time to time, the Gaon Sabha allots the land for Abadi purposes and the allottees are permitted to raise houses for residential purposes. The U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act also provides regularization of unauthorized occupants belong to Schedule Caste and other backward classes and also to those plersons belonging to the general category living below the poverty line under Section 123 of the Act.

7. In the present case, the undisputed fact which emerges from the perusal of the record is, that the land is recorded as Abadi land. The petitioner was using a small portion of the land approximately 95 square yards for residential purposes and that the constructions on this portion was an old one. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served, if the petitioner is evicted and subsequently the same land is allotted to another person for residential purposes. Interest of justice would be suffice, if the land is 4 WRIC No. 1003937 of 2005 regularized in favour of the petitioner on the payment of damages. The Tehsildar in his notice had estimated the damages amounting to Rs.4700/- on the basis of the market value of the land in question at that moment of time. (ii) D.C.M. Limited (supra):-

5. I have held in Bhudaee v. Collector,2005 (98) RD 741, that if some one is in authorized occupation over a small piece of land of Gaon Sabha since long and has constructed his house then instead of eviction proper relief is to award damages. In the said authority, I have also held that if possession is since late seventies or early eighties then proper measure of damages is Rs.100/- per square yard as it approximate market value of the abadi land at that time of villages of U.P.. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances, the above principle can be applied to the instant case also. The possession is since 1964; the land was not situated in any abadi area; even for 20 years possession, damages claimed were Rs.5/- per square yard. In view of this, it appears that in 1964 the market value of the land in dispute was hardly Rs.10/- per square yard Accordingly, in my opinion interest of justice will best be served by directing the petitioner to pay damages @ Rs.300/- per square yard in lieu of settlement of the land in dispute with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner agreed for the payment of the aforesaid compensation after slight hesitation. The argument of learned counsel was that damages might be reduced a bit. However, I do not see any reason to reduce the damages.

13. On perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it is found that the Tehsildar found that the petitioner was using the land for residential purpose and that the construction was an old one. The Tehsildar directed that the Gaon Sabha may evict the petitioner. Gaon Sabha holds the land for the benefit of the residents of the villagers and, from time to time, the Gaon Sabha allots the land for Abadi purposes and the allottees are permitted to raise houses for residential purpose. U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act also provides regularization of unauthorized occupants belonging to Schedule Caste and other backward classes and also to those persons belong to the general category living below the poverty line under Section 123 of the Act. Instead of eviction, the authority could have awarded damages as an 5 WRIC No. 1003937 of 2005 alternative relief in lieu of eviction, taking into consideration, the duration of occupancy on the land in question as well as considering the nature of the unauthorized occupation coupled with the are of the encroached portion. It is also apparent from perusal of the aforesaid judgment that if some one is in authorized occupation over a small piece of land of Gaon Sabha since long and has constructed his house then instead of eviction proper relief is to award damages.

14. In the present case, the petitioner was granted lease in the year 1978; on the said land he constructed his house; and is still living with his entire family members. Instead of eviction, proper remedy is to award damages and in view of the above, the judgements relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

15. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, interest of justice would be served by directing the petitioner to pay damages to the tune of Rs.15,000/- in lieu of settlement of land in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed for payment of aforesaid compensation after slight hesitation. The argument of learned counsel was that damages might be reduced a bit. However, I do not see any reason to reduce the damages.

16. Accordingly, it is directed that within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, the petitioner shall deposit Rs.15,000/- and on payment of the said amount, the land shall stand settled with the petitioner and the impugned orders 16.1.2003,

27.8.2004 and 6.6.2005 passed by respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively shall stand set aside.

17. It is, however, made clear that if the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the period stipulated by this Court, this order shall stand automatically vacated and the writ petition should be deemed to have been dismissed. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited before the Divisional Officer concerned for beking kept in consolidated Gaon fund constituted under Section 125-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 6 WRIC No. 1003937 of 2005

18. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. August 28, 2025 GK Sinha (Irshad Ali,J.) GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 to 3.

2. The petitioner is an ex-servicemen and was allotted land no.892/1 biswa by the Gram Pradhan for constructing house on the residential purposes and petitioner constructed his house and is still living with his entire family members. On the basis of wrong and baseless report of Lekhpal due to enmity, a case was registered under Section 122B U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the petitioner in the court of Tehsildar and Tehsildar imposed penalty against the petitioner. The petitioner filed revision against the order dated 28.8.2002 in the Court of Additional Collector which was allowed and the same was remanded back for fresh decision vide order dated 31.7.2002. The case was not considered and dismissed on 16.1.2003 and the petitioner also filed revision in the court of Additional Collector which was also dismissed as not maintainable, against which the present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 16.1.2003, 27.8.2004 and 6.6.2005 passed by respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.

3. Due to death of Shri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, notice was issued to respondent no.4 and as per the office report dated

1.5.2025, notice has been found sufficient upon respondent no.4. 2 WRIC No. 1003937 of 2005

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has constructed house and is in possession since 30.1.1978, therefore instead of eviction from the property in dispute appropriate remedy was to impose damages upon the petitioner and to regularize the lease.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that Suit No.34/2006 titled 'Ram Autar v. Mahadev and others) was filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, District Hardoi in the year 2006 which was decreed vide judgment and order dated 10.10.2007 directing not to interfere the possession of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that after dismissal of the revision by the Additional Commissioner on 6.6.2005, suit was filed and the permanent injunction was also granted.

7. In support of his submission that instead eviction from the land in dispute, damages would be awarded to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon following judgments: (i) Manno Prasad v. Upper Collector (Prashasan), Kanpur Dehat and another reported in 2009(27) LCD 812 (ii) D.C.M. Limited v. The Collector, Ghaziabad and others reported in 2007(25)LCD 1194

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the impugned orders do not suffer from infirmity or illegality and are just and valid orders.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record as well as case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. It is admitted case of the parties in the writ petition that interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner, which is extracted hereinbelow: "Notices on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 3 have been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, while notice on behalf of opposite party no.4 has been accepted by Sri R.N. Gupta. 3 WRIC No. 1003937 of 2005 Let counter affidavit be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks. List thereafter. Till the date of next listing, status quo as exists today with regard to possession in respect of the plot in question shall be maintained by the parties."

11. In pursuance to the above-extracted interim order, the petitioner is in possession on the land of the Gaon Sabha since 30.1.1978.

12. Learned counsel for the has cited the the following judgment, operative portion of which is extracted hereinbelow: (i) Manno Prasad (supra):-

3. In proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act, the evidence of the Lekhpal and other witnesses was taken and it was found that the constructions raised by the petitioner was an old one. The Tehsildar found that the petitioner was using the land for residential purposes and that the construction was an old one and consequently discharged the notice under Section 122-B of the Act. The Tehsildar, further directed that the Gaon Sabha may file a suit, if they are so advised.

5. The Gaon Sabha holds the land for the benefit of the residents of the villagers and, from time to time, the Gaon Sabha allots the land for Abadi purposes and the allottees are permitted to raise houses for residential purposes. The U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act also provides regularization of unauthorized occupants belong to Schedule Caste and other backward classes and also to those plersons belonging to the general category living below the poverty line under Section 123 of the Act.

7. In the present case, the undisputed fact which emerges from the perusal of the record is, that the land is recorded as Abadi land. The petitioner was using a small portion of the land approximately 95 square yards for residential purposes and that the constructions on this portion was an old one. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served, if the petitioner is evicted and subsequently the same land is allotted to another person for residential purposes. Interest of justice would be suffice, if the land is 4 WRIC No. 1003937 of 2005 regularized in favour of the petitioner on the payment of damages. The Tehsildar in his notice had estimated the damages amounting to Rs.4700/- on the basis of the market value of the land in question at that moment of time. (ii) D.C.M. Limited (supra):-

5. I have held in Bhudaee v. Collector,2005 (98) RD 741, that if some one is in authorized occupation over a small piece of land of Gaon Sabha since long and has constructed his house then instead of eviction proper relief is to award damages. In the said authority, I have also held that if possession is since late seventies or early eighties then proper measure of damages is Rs.100/- per square yard as it approximate market value of the abadi land at that time of villages of U.P.. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances, the above principle can be applied to the instant case also. The possession is since 1964; the land was not situated in any abadi area; even for 20 years possession, damages claimed were Rs.5/- per square yard. In view of this, it appears that in 1964 the market value of the land in dispute was hardly Rs.10/- per square yard Accordingly, in my opinion interest of justice will best be served by directing the petitioner to pay damages @ Rs.300/- per square yard in lieu of settlement of the land in dispute with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner agreed for the payment of the aforesaid compensation after slight hesitation. The argument of learned counsel was that damages might be reduced a bit. However, I do not see any reason to reduce the damages.

13. On perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it is found that the Tehsildar found that the petitioner was using the land for residential purpose and that the construction was an old one. The Tehsildar directed that the Gaon Sabha may evict the petitioner. Gaon Sabha holds the land for the benefit of the residents of the villagers and, from time to time, the Gaon Sabha allots the land for Abadi purposes and the allottees are permitted to raise houses for residential purpose. U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act also provides regularization of unauthorized occupants belonging to Schedule Caste and other backward classes and also to those persons belong to the general category living below the poverty line under Section 123 of the Act. Instead of eviction, the authority could have awarded damages as an 5 WRIC No. 1003937 of 2005 alternative relief in lieu of eviction, taking into consideration, the duration of occupancy on the land in question as well as considering the nature of the unauthorized occupation coupled with the are of the encroached portion. It is also apparent from perusal of the aforesaid judgment that if some one is in authorized occupation over a small piece of land of Gaon Sabha since long and has constructed his house then instead of eviction proper relief is to award damages.

14. In the present case, the petitioner was granted lease in the year 1978; on the said land he constructed his house; and is still living with his entire family members. Instead of eviction, proper remedy is to award damages and in view of the above, the judgements relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

15. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, interest of justice would be served by directing the petitioner to pay damages to the tune of Rs.15,000/- in lieu of settlement of land in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed for payment of aforesaid compensation after slight hesitation. The argument of learned counsel was that damages might be reduced a bit. However, I do not see any reason to reduce the damages.

16. Accordingly, it is directed that within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, the petitioner shall deposit Rs.15,000/- and on payment of the said amount, the land shall stand settled with the petitioner and the impugned orders 16.1.2003,

27.8.2004 and 6.6.2005 passed by respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively shall stand set aside.

17. It is, however, made clear that if the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the period stipulated by this Court, this order shall stand automatically vacated and the writ petition should be deemed to have been dismissed. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited before the Divisional Officer concerned for beking kept in consolidated Gaon fund constituted under Section 125-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 6 WRIC No. 1003937 of 2005

18. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. August 28, 2025 GK Sinha (Irshad Ali,J.) GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench