High Court · 2025

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned orders have been passed merely on the basis of assumption of dereliction of duty to the effect that petitioner being posted currently as Tehsildar in the Lucknow Municipal Corporation, Lucknow, which is equivalent to post of Assistant Collector, has not ensured removal of encroachment over government properties.

4. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of impugned orders will make it clear that allegations levelled against the petitioner are on the basis of assumption and surmises with regard to commission and omission of encroachment over the government property and its removal.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that municipal limits of the Municipal Corporation, Lucknow is 631 square kilometers, which is approximately 1,55,923 acres comprising eight zones and 110 wards with 212 villages and petitioner has been posted on deputation in the year 2023 itself and therefore, it is virtually impossible for him to have acquired knowledge with regard to alleged illegal encroachment over government properties over all the areas comprising in Lucknow Municipal Corporation within a short span of merely two years.

6. Learned counsel has also submitted that six of the villages with two villages recently have been brought within such jurisdiction and therefore, provisions of Section 67 of Revenue Code, 2006 along with Rule 66 & 67 of the Rules of 2016 are applicable whereunder an Assistant Collector is required to act for removal of an encroachment over government property only once information is submitted by the Chairman or any member or Secretary of the Land Management Committee or any officer of the local authority concerned in terms of Rule 66 of the Rules 2016.

7. It is submitted that since the present area comprises agricultural area as well, revenue records pertaining to such area are available only with the Tehsildar of the Tehsil and not with the Lucknow Municipal Corporation, Lucknow, and therefore, petitioner could have acted in accordance with Section 67 of the Revenue Code only in terms of Rule of the Rules of 2016.

8. It is submitted that since no such information was ever supplied to petitioner, there was no occasion to have ensured removal of encroachment without any specific information pertaining to such encroachment over government property. It is therefore, submitted that impugned orders have been passed ignoring provisions of Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 66 & 67 of the Rules of 2016 framed thereunder and therefore, it cannot be construed that any misconduct has been committed by petitioner requiring initiation of disciplinary proceedings and his suspension.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner also adverted to Division Bench of this Court in the case of Career Convent Edu. Andcharitable Trust and another Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-C No. 1953 of 2021 to submit that provisions of Section 67 of Revenue Code, 2006 shall be applicable also in such cases where revenue villages are brought within jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner has also adverted to letter dated 28.06.2025 issued by Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow whereby directions have been issued for identification of such government properties where encroachment by private individuals have been made and therefore, submits that since such an exercise has recently been undertaken, there was no occasion for petitioner to have acted upon in terms of Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006. It is also submitted that impugned orders have been passed only on the basis of report dated 09.06.2025 submitted in pursuance of complaint made in IGRS portal without participation of petitioner and therefore displays non-application of mind by concerned authority.

11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 and 5 has not provided any instructions in the matter while learned State Counsel on the basis of written instructions submits that charge sheet with regard to allegations levelled against petitioner has already been prepared and approved and shall be served shortly to petitioner.

12. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner is currently on deputation with Lucknow Municipal Corporation as Tehsildar and has been suspended from service with initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him in view of allegations levelled against him as indicated hereinabove.

13. The suspension order clearly indicates a prima facie satisfaction recorded by authority concerned with regard to such allegations for which purpose disciplinary proceedings are sought to be initiated by serving charge sheet, which is said to have been prepared.

14. The submission as advanced by learned counsel for petitioner pertains to non-compliance of Rule 67 & 67 of the Rules 2016, due to which it has been submitted that it was impossible for petitioner to have acted in accordance with provisions of Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 without any such specific information.

15. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a ground shall be available to petitioner to be taken during the course of disciplinary proceedings and cannot be adjudicated in the present petition where only initiation of disciplinary proceedings and suspension order are under challenge.

16. Sofar as submission with regard to non-application of mind is concerned, perusal of impugned orders depict that detailed examination of complaints have been indicated particularly with regard to Gata numbers also having been mentioned pertaining to encroachment over government properties and therefore, does not indicate any non-application of mind by the authority concerned. There does not appear to be any provisions of law as to whether any participation of petitioner was required even prior to initiation of disciplinary authority.

17. It is also noticeable that no plea with regard to lack jurisdiction in issuance of impugned orders has been taken in the present petition.

18. The grounds so taken in writ petitioner and as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner obviously shall be available to petitioner to be taken and be considered in the disciplinary proceedings.

19. In view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the orders impugned. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Virendra VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned orders have been passed merely on the basis of assumption of dereliction of duty to the effect that petitioner being posted currently as Tehsildar in the Lucknow Municipal Corporation, Lucknow, which is equivalent to post of Assistant Collector, has not ensured removal of encroachment over government properties.

4. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of impugned orders will make it clear that allegations levelled against the petitioner are on the basis of assumption and surmises with regard to commission and omission of encroachment over the government property and its removal.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that municipal limits of the Municipal Corporation, Lucknow is 631 square kilometers, which is approximately 1,55,923 acres comprising eight zones and 110 wards with 212 villages and petitioner has been posted on deputation in the year 2023 itself and therefore, it is virtually impossible for him to have acquired knowledge with regard to alleged illegal encroachment over government properties over all the areas comprising in Lucknow Municipal Corporation within a short span of merely two years.

6. Learned counsel has also submitted that six of the villages with two villages recently have been brought within such jurisdiction and therefore, provisions of Section 67 of Revenue Code, 2006 along with Rule 66 & 67 of the Rules of 2016 are applicable whereunder an Assistant Collector is required to act for removal of an encroachment over government property only once information is submitted by the Chairman or any member or Secretary of the Land Management Committee or any officer of the local authority concerned in terms of Rule 66 of the Rules 2016.

7. It is submitted that since the present area comprises agricultural area as well, revenue records pertaining to such area are available only with the Tehsildar of the Tehsil and not with the Lucknow Municipal Corporation, Lucknow, and therefore, petitioner could have acted in accordance with Section 67 of the Revenue Code only in terms of Rule of the Rules of 2016.

8. It is submitted that since no such information was ever supplied to petitioner, there was no occasion to have ensured removal of encroachment without any specific information pertaining to such encroachment over government property. It is therefore, submitted that impugned orders have been passed ignoring provisions of Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 66 & 67 of the Rules of 2016 framed thereunder and therefore, it cannot be construed that any misconduct has been committed by petitioner requiring initiation of disciplinary proceedings and his suspension.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner also adverted to Division Bench of this Court in the case of Career Convent Edu. Andcharitable Trust and another Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-C No. 1953 of 2021 to submit that provisions of Section 67 of Revenue Code, 2006 shall be applicable also in such cases where revenue villages are brought within jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner has also adverted to letter dated 28.06.2025 issued by Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow whereby directions have been issued for identification of such government properties where encroachment by private individuals have been made and therefore, submits that since such an exercise has recently been undertaken, there was no occasion for petitioner to have acted upon in terms of Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006. It is also submitted that impugned orders have been passed only on the basis of report dated 09.06.2025 submitted in pursuance of complaint made in IGRS portal without participation of petitioner and therefore displays non-application of mind by concerned authority.

11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 and 5 has not provided any instructions in the matter while learned State Counsel on the basis of written instructions submits that charge sheet with regard to allegations levelled against petitioner has already been prepared and approved and shall be served shortly to petitioner.

12. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner is currently on deputation with Lucknow Municipal Corporation as Tehsildar and has been suspended from service with initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him in view of allegations levelled against him as indicated hereinabove.

13. The suspension order clearly indicates a prima facie satisfaction recorded by authority concerned with regard to such allegations for which purpose disciplinary proceedings are sought to be initiated by serving charge sheet, which is said to have been prepared.

14. The submission as advanced by learned counsel for petitioner pertains to non-compliance of Rule 67 & 67 of the Rules 2016, due to which it has been submitted that it was impossible for petitioner to have acted in accordance with provisions of Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 without any such specific information.

15. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a ground shall be available to petitioner to be taken during the course of disciplinary proceedings and cannot be adjudicated in the present petition where only initiation of disciplinary proceedings and suspension order are under challenge.

16. Sofar as submission with regard to non-application of mind is concerned, perusal of impugned orders depict that detailed examination of complaints have been indicated particularly with regard to Gata numbers also having been mentioned pertaining to encroachment over government properties and therefore, does not indicate any non-application of mind by the authority concerned. There does not appear to be any provisions of law as to whether any participation of petitioner was required even prior to initiation of disciplinary authority.

17. It is also noticeable that no plea with regard to lack jurisdiction in issuance of impugned orders has been taken in the present petition.

18. The grounds so taken in writ petitioner and as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner obviously shall be available to petitioner to be taken and be considered in the disciplinary proceedings.

19. In view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the orders impugned. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Virendra VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench