High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Jagendra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that present dispute pertains to Gata NO. 546/0.9350 hect. situated at Village - Baraha Kalan, Paragana-Asivan Rasoolabad, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao whcih is recorded as a Class 6- 2/non-agriculture land in the revenue records. He further submits that a complaint was filed U/S 767 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and proceedings were initaited against the petitioner.

3. It has been submitted that petitioenr was not aware of the said proceedings due to which he could not participate and consequently by means of an ex-parte order dated 17.12.2022 the petitioner was declared to be an illegal encroacher upon the aforesaid land and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was also imposed upon him.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had preferred an appeal U/S 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the District Magistrate, Unnao who has also rejected his appeal by means of order dated 30.05.2025. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that entire proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Tehsildar, Hasanganj were illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as no notices were ever served upon the petitioner and the entire proceedings were concluded in haste.

5. He submits that even a perusal of the impugned order dated 17.12.2022 would indicate that the competent authority has recorded a fact with regard to issuance of notice and non- appearance of the petitioner pursuant to the notice issued. He has categorically stated that there is satisfaction recorded by the Tehsildar, Hasanganj with regard to service of notice upn the petitioner. He further submits the unless and until the notice is served upon the petitioner, the respondents could not have proceeded to hear the case ex-parte and certainly could not have decided finally without associating the petitioner with the said proceedings. Accordingly, the said order is in gross violation of Article 14 & 300A of Constitution of India and the judgment passed by this Court Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others (Writ C No. 6658 of 2022, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 829.in the case of therefore deserves to be set aside.

6. He submits that these grounds were raised before the appellate authority who only proceeded to consider the case of the State and that the said land was recorded as gaon sabha land (Khanti) and proceeded to reject the appeal of the petitioner.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

8. A challenge has been made to the impugned order(s) on the ground that the procedure, which ought to have been followed by the opposite party No.4 at the time of passing of final order in the proceedings instituted under Section 67(1) of the Code of 2006, was not followed. In continuation, it is stated that the procedure, which should be followed, has been indicated by this Court in the judgment dated 02.12.2022 passed in the bunch of petitions, leading of which, is Writ C No.6658 of 2022 (Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 829. A reference has been made to para 74 of the report of Rishipal Singh (Supra), which reads as under:- "74. Thus, in my view, following guidelines be adopted as procedure to be applied to proceedings under Sections 67,67A and 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code. It is all aimed at ensuring transparency in the procedure, judiciousness in approach by the authorities and to thwart every complaint made with ulterior and oblique motive to dislodge a long settled possession and causing of unnecessary harassment to an innocent villager: (i) In case of complaint made on RC From 19, the official making it shall ensure that proper survey is done in the light of observations made in this judgment; the land, occupation of which has stood identified to be unauthorized is in exact measurement and so also shown in the survey map prepared on scale, as per the Land Revenue Survey Regulations, 1978; the exact assessment of damages on the basis of circle rate with details of calculation made on that basis. (ii) In a case of suo motu action, before issuing RC Form 20, the authority will ensure that proper report upon RC Form 19 is submitted as per para (i) above on parameters of subrule 1 Rule 67. (iii) RC Form 20 must be accompanied by a copy of report and spot survey submitted alongwith RC Form 19 to the person against whom proceedings have been instituted, or even otherwise submitted in case of suo motu action vide para (ii) above. (iv) Upon reply being filed to the notice, if authority finds that spot survey/explanation report is not satisfactory, it may order for a fresh spot report to be prepared in presence of the party aggrieved. (v) In the event, objection includes a plea of statutory protection/ benefit under Section 67-A, the authority should invite the objection from the Gaon Sabha, and will decide the same alongwith the matter under Section 67, without requiring aggrieved party to move separate application under Section 67- A. (vi) If the report is admitted on record, may be in case no objection is filed, the authority must ensure presence of the person preparing the report before it, to prove the report by his statement, with a right to aggrieved party to cross question him. (vii) The authority must endeavour to decide the case within time framed provided under the relevant Act and the Rules and should desist from granting adjournment to the parties in a routine manner. (viii) In case of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, preferred/ filed within the time prescribed alongwith interim relief application, the interim relief application as far as possible should be decided within two weeks' time with prior notice to other side and where plea of settlement under Section 67-A has been taken before Assistant Collector-1st Class, and damages to the tune of 25 % at-least of the total damages are paid and an affidavit of undertaking is filed for not raising any further construction upon the land in question, the authorities including civil administration should avoid taking any coercive measure pursuant to the order appealed against until the disposal of interim relief application. The Appellate authority may also consider granting interim relief on the very first day of filing of appeal with stay application if above conditions are fulfilled by the appellant. (ix) The appellate authority should as far as possible decide the appeal within a period of two months of its presentation."

9. He stated that this Court in the judgment passed in Writ - C No.9500 of 2022 (Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank vs. The Additional District Collector, District Unnao And 2 Others); also observed that the report of Lekhpal should be proved and unproved report can not be relied upon.

10. It is also stated that a perusal of the impugned order(s) would show that without following the procedure as indicated by this Court in the judgment, referred above, the opposite party No.3 passed the order dated 17.12.2022, which was affirmed by the impugned order dated 30.05.2025. As such, the interference of this Court is required in the matter.

11. Learned counsel for the side opposite could not dispute the principle settled by this Court while dealing with the proceedings instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006.

12. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the orders particularly the order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the opposite party No.3 and the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the opposite party No.2.

13. It is apparent from the impugned order dated 17.12.2022 that the procedure as indicated by this Court in the judgment, referred above, was not followed while deciding the case instituted under Section 67(1) of the Code of 2006 by opposite party No. 3 affirmed by the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 30.05.2025, who also failed to take note of the fact that while passing the order dated 17.12.2022 the opposite party No.3 has not followed the procedure prescribed. Thus, to the view of this Court, the interference is required in the matter.

14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order(s) dated 30.05.2025 and 17.12.2022 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to opposite party No.3-Assistant Collector First Class/Tehsildar, Hasanganj, Unnao to conclude the proceedings afresh strictly in terms of law laid down by this Court in the judgment, referred above, within a period of three months as statutory provisions says that the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 ought to have been concluded within a period of 90 days.

15. For concluding the proceedings, the opposite party No.3 shall not provide any adjournment to the petitioner and in case, the petitioner fails to appear on the date fixed, then in that event, the authority concerned is at liberty to proceed ex-parte, however, in the light of the law laid down by this Court and conclude the proceedings within a period of three months. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur, J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Jagendra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that present dispute pertains to Gata NO. 546/0.9350 hect. situated at Village - Baraha Kalan, Paragana-Asivan Rasoolabad, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao whcih is recorded as a Class 6- 2/non-agriculture land in the revenue records. He further submits that a complaint was filed U/S 767 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and proceedings were initaited against the petitioner.

3. It has been submitted that petitioenr was not aware of the said proceedings due to which he could not participate and consequently by means of an ex-parte order dated 17.12.2022 the petitioner was declared to be an illegal encroacher upon the aforesaid land and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was also imposed upon him.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had preferred an appeal U/S 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the District Magistrate, Unnao who has also rejected his appeal by means of order dated 30.05.2025. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that entire proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Tehsildar, Hasanganj were illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as no notices were ever served upon the petitioner and the entire proceedings were concluded in haste.

5. He submits that even a perusal of the impugned order dated 17.12.2022 would indicate that the competent authority has recorded a fact with regard to issuance of notice and non- appearance of the petitioner pursuant to the notice issued. He has categorically stated that there is satisfaction recorded by the Tehsildar, Hasanganj with regard to service of notice upn the petitioner. He further submits the unless and until the notice is served upon the petitioner, the respondents could not have proceeded to hear the case ex-parte and certainly could not have decided finally without associating the petitioner with the said proceedings. Accordingly, the said order is in gross violation of Article 14 & 300A of Constitution of India and the judgment passed by this Court Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others (Writ C No. 6658 of 2022, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 829.in the case of therefore deserves to be set aside.

6. He submits that these grounds were raised before the appellate authority who only proceeded to consider the case of the State and that the said land was recorded as gaon sabha land (Khanti) and proceeded to reject the appeal of the petitioner.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

8. A challenge has been made to the impugned order(s) on the ground that the procedure, which ought to have been followed by the opposite party No.4 at the time of passing of final order in the proceedings instituted under Section 67(1) of the Code of 2006, was not followed. In continuation, it is stated that the procedure, which should be followed, has been indicated by this Court in the judgment dated 02.12.2022 passed in the bunch of petitions, leading of which, is Writ C No.6658 of 2022 (Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 829. A reference has been made to para 74 of the report of Rishipal Singh (Supra), which reads as under:- "74. Thus, in my view, following guidelines be adopted as procedure to be applied to proceedings under Sections 67,67A and 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code. It is all aimed at ensuring transparency in the procedure, judiciousness in approach by the authorities and to thwart every complaint made with ulterior and oblique motive to dislodge a long settled possession and causing of unnecessary harassment to an innocent villager: (i) In case of complaint made on RC From 19, the official making it shall ensure that proper survey is done in the light of observations made in this judgment; the land, occupation of which has stood identified to be unauthorized is in exact measurement and so also shown in the survey map prepared on scale, as per the Land Revenue Survey Regulations, 1978; the exact assessment of damages on the basis of circle rate with details of calculation made on that basis. (ii) In a case of suo motu action, before issuing RC Form 20, the authority will ensure that proper report upon RC Form 19 is submitted as per para (i) above on parameters of subrule 1 Rule 67. (iii) RC Form 20 must be accompanied by a copy of report and spot survey submitted alongwith RC Form 19 to the person against whom proceedings have been instituted, or even otherwise submitted in case of suo motu action vide para (ii) above. (iv) Upon reply being filed to the notice, if authority finds that spot survey/explanation report is not satisfactory, it may order for a fresh spot report to be prepared in presence of the party aggrieved. (v) In the event, objection includes a plea of statutory protection/ benefit under Section 67-A, the authority should invite the objection from the Gaon Sabha, and will decide the same alongwith the matter under Section 67, without requiring aggrieved party to move separate application under Section 67- A. (vi) If the report is admitted on record, may be in case no objection is filed, the authority must ensure presence of the person preparing the report before it, to prove the report by his statement, with a right to aggrieved party to cross question him. (vii) The authority must endeavour to decide the case within time framed provided under the relevant Act and the Rules and should desist from granting adjournment to the parties in a routine manner. (viii) In case of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, preferred/ filed within the time prescribed alongwith interim relief application, the interim relief application as far as possible should be decided within two weeks' time with prior notice to other side and where plea of settlement under Section 67-A has been taken before Assistant Collector-1st Class, and damages to the tune of 25 % at-least of the total damages are paid and an affidavit of undertaking is filed for not raising any further construction upon the land in question, the authorities including civil administration should avoid taking any coercive measure pursuant to the order appealed against until the disposal of interim relief application. The Appellate authority may also consider granting interim relief on the very first day of filing of appeal with stay application if above conditions are fulfilled by the appellant. (ix) The appellate authority should as far as possible decide the appeal within a period of two months of its presentation."

9. He stated that this Court in the judgment passed in Writ - C No.9500 of 2022 (Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank vs. The Additional District Collector, District Unnao And 2 Others); also observed that the report of Lekhpal should be proved and unproved report can not be relied upon.

10. It is also stated that a perusal of the impugned order(s) would show that without following the procedure as indicated by this Court in the judgment, referred above, the opposite party No.3 passed the order dated 17.12.2022, which was affirmed by the impugned order dated 30.05.2025. As such, the interference of this Court is required in the matter.

11. Learned counsel for the side opposite could not dispute the principle settled by this Court while dealing with the proceedings instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006.

12. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the orders particularly the order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the opposite party No.3 and the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the opposite party No.2.

13. It is apparent from the impugned order dated 17.12.2022 that the procedure as indicated by this Court in the judgment, referred above, was not followed while deciding the case instituted under Section 67(1) of the Code of 2006 by opposite party No. 3 affirmed by the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 30.05.2025, who also failed to take note of the fact that while passing the order dated 17.12.2022 the opposite party No.3 has not followed the procedure prescribed. Thus, to the view of this Court, the interference is required in the matter.

14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order(s) dated 30.05.2025 and 17.12.2022 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to opposite party No.3-Assistant Collector First Class/Tehsildar, Hasanganj, Unnao to conclude the proceedings afresh strictly in terms of law laid down by this Court in the judgment, referred above, within a period of three months as statutory provisions says that the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 ought to have been concluded within a period of 90 days.

15. For concluding the proceedings, the opposite party No.3 shall not provide any adjournment to the petitioner and in case, the petitioner fails to appear on the date fixed, then in that event, the authority concerned is at liberty to proceed ex-parte, however, in the light of the law laid down by this Court and conclude the proceedings within a period of three months. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur, J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench