High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri J. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 while notice on behalf of respondent No.4- Gaon Sabha has been accepted by Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 7.10.2024 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil- Dalmau, Salon, District Raebareli where in proceedings under Section 67 of Revenue Code, he has rejected the objections of the petitioner and passed orders for eviction and imposition of penalty and fine. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Dalmau has rejected the contentions of the petitioner holding that the land situated at gata No.535 M area 0.3010 hectare situated at Village Gaura Khaspari, Pargana, Tehsil Dalmau, District Raebareli is recorded as Khalihan which is a gaon sabha land and over 0.025 hectare the petitioner has illegally occupied and made permanent constructions while on the other hand, the petitioner could not demonstrate his ownership over the said land and accordingly rejected the objections passing the order for eviction and imposition of penalty and fine.

3. In the appellate proceedings initiated at the behest of the petitioner the petitioner has stated that the report dated 13.2.2023 of the Lekhpal would clearly indicate that there is no encroachment over the land situated at gata No.535 M and accordingly it cannot be said that the petitioner has encroached upon teh gaon sabha land. The appellate authority relying upon teh report dated 13.2.2023 as well as other reports of the Circle Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector dated 16.3.2024 and 14.8.2023 to record a finding against the petitioner and rejected the appeal.

4. The petitioner before this Court has submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in gross violations of the directions of a coordinate bench in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC Online All 829 where inspection has to be done in presence of the parties after giving due notice. He submits that the findings of both the authorities below are perverse and contrary to the report of the Lekhpal dated 13.2.2023 and it cannot be said that the petitioner has, in fact, encroached upon the gaon sabha land of gata No.535 M area 0.025 hectare situated at Village Gaura Khaspari, Pargana, Tehsil Dalmau, District Raebareli and accordingly prayed for setting aside of the impugned orders.

5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

6. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The procedure, which should be followed while deciding the case instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006, has already been settled by this Court as it would appear from para 74 of the judgment passed in the case of Rishipal Singh (Supra) as also the judgment passed in the case of Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank (Supra). The relevant para 74 of the judgment passed in the case of Rishipal Singh (Supra) 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."

8. In the judgement passed in the case of Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank (Supra), this Court has observed that the report of Lekhpal should be proved as per law and an unproved report cannot be relied upon.

9. A perusal of the order(s) indicate that the procedure, as prescribed by this Court, has not been followed, which is also not in dispute. Accordingly, the orders dated 16.5.2025 and 19.11.2020 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the opposite party No.3-Tehsildar, Tehsil -Dalmau, District - Raebareli, who shall conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

10. 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.

11. In case, the present petitioner fails to produce the certified copy of this order before the authority concerned within 15 days from today, the benefit of this order would not be available to the petitioner.

12. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri J. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 while notice on behalf of respondent No.4- Gaon Sabha has been accepted by Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 7.10.2024 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil- Dalmau, Salon, District Raebareli where in proceedings under Section 67 of Revenue Code, he has rejected the objections of the petitioner and passed orders for eviction and imposition of penalty and fine. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Dalmau has rejected the contentions of the petitioner holding that the land situated at gata No.535 M area 0.3010 hectare situated at Village Gaura Khaspari, Pargana, Tehsil Dalmau, District Raebareli is recorded as Khalihan which is a gaon sabha land and over 0.025 hectare the petitioner has illegally occupied and made permanent constructions while on the other hand, the petitioner could not demonstrate his ownership over the said land and accordingly rejected the objections passing the order for eviction and imposition of penalty and fine.

3. In the appellate proceedings initiated at the behest of the petitioner the petitioner has stated that the report dated 13.2.2023 of the Lekhpal would clearly indicate that there is no encroachment over the land situated at gata No.535 M and accordingly it cannot be said that the petitioner has encroached upon teh gaon sabha land. The appellate authority relying upon teh report dated 13.2.2023 as well as other reports of the Circle Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector dated 16.3.2024 and 14.8.2023 to record a finding against the petitioner and rejected the appeal.

4. The petitioner before this Court has submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in gross violations of the directions of a coordinate bench in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC Online All 829 where inspection has to be done in presence of the parties after giving due notice. He submits that the findings of both the authorities below are perverse and contrary to the report of the Lekhpal dated 13.2.2023 and it cannot be said that the petitioner has, in fact, encroached upon the gaon sabha land of gata No.535 M area 0.025 hectare situated at Village Gaura Khaspari, Pargana, Tehsil Dalmau, District Raebareli and accordingly prayed for setting aside of the impugned orders.

5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

6. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The procedure, which should be followed while deciding the case instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006, has already been settled by this Court as it would appear from para 74 of the judgment passed in the case of Rishipal Singh (Supra) as also the judgment passed in the case of Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank (Supra). The relevant para 74 of the judgment passed in the case of Rishipal Singh (Supra) 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."

8. In the judgement passed in the case of Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank (Supra), this Court has observed that the report of Lekhpal should be proved as per law and an unproved report cannot be relied upon.

9. A perusal of the order(s) indicate that the procedure, as prescribed by this Court, has not been followed, which is also not in dispute. Accordingly, the orders dated 16.5.2025 and 19.11.2020 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the opposite party No.3-Tehsildar, Tehsil -Dalmau, District - Raebareli, who shall conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

10. 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.

11. In case, the present petitioner fails to produce the certified copy of this order before the authority concerned within 15 days from today, the benefit of this order would not be available to the petitioner.

12. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench