High Court · 2025
Case Details
1. Heard Shri R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code.
3. It has been submitted that on the basis of the report submitted by the Lekhpal, a notice was served upon the petitioner that he is illegally occupying the land situated at Gata No.775 which is recorded as 'Khad Gaddha' and is a public utility land. The petitioner has participating in the proceedings and opposed the said notice, has submitted that a pucca construction is existing from the time of his ancestors of nearly 150 years and is a abadi land and therefore prayed for setting aside of the notice. The Tehsildar, Devi Pattan, District Bahraich by means of order dated 16.03.2023 rejected the contentions of the petitioner and passed the order for eviction and imposition of penalty and fine for illegally occupying the Gaon Sabha land. Against the order dated
16.03.2023, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Revenue Officer, District Bahraich. In the appeal, the petitioner had categorically stated that the report was submitted by the Lekhpal without visiting the disputed property and the report was arbitrary and deserves to be rejected and no action would be taken on the basis of the report submitted by the Lekhpal. The appellate authority without considering or returning any findings with regard to the objections raised by the petitioner, rejecting his appeal holding that the petitioner was in illegal occupation of the Gaon Sabha land. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside especially in light of the finding recorded by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rishpal Singh vs. State of U.P. Writ C No.6658 of 2022 (para-74), 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.
4. In view of the above, the impugned orders having been passed without proper consideration of the petitioner's objections and in violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order dated 01.01.2025 passed by Additional Collector/Chief Revenue Officer, Tahsil Payagpur, District Bahraich and order dated 16.03.2023 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Payagpur, District Bahraich are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner due opportunity of hearing.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 KR [Alok Mathur,J.] RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1. Heard Shri R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code.
3. It has been submitted that on the basis of the report submitted by the Lekhpal, a notice was served upon the petitioner that he is illegally occupying the land situated at Gata No.775 which is recorded as 'Khad Gaddha' and is a public utility land. The petitioner has participating in the proceedings and opposed the said notice, has submitted that a pucca construction is existing from the time of his ancestors of nearly 150 years and is a abadi land and therefore prayed for setting aside of the notice. The Tehsildar, Devi Pattan, District Bahraich by means of order dated 16.03.2023 rejected the contentions of the petitioner and passed the order for eviction and imposition of penalty and fine for illegally occupying the Gaon Sabha land. Against the order dated
16.03.2023, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Revenue Officer, District Bahraich. In the appeal, the petitioner had categorically stated that the report was submitted by the Lekhpal without visiting the disputed property and the report was arbitrary and deserves to be rejected and no action would be taken on the basis of the report submitted by the Lekhpal. The appellate authority without considering or returning any findings with regard to the objections raised by the petitioner, rejecting his appeal holding that the petitioner was in illegal occupation of the Gaon Sabha land. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside especially in light of the finding recorded by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rishpal Singh vs. State of U.P. Writ C No.6658 of 2022 (para-74), 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.
4. In view of the above, the impugned orders having been passed without proper consideration of the petitioner's objections and in violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order dated 01.01.2025 passed by Additional Collector/Chief Revenue Officer, Tahsil Payagpur, District Bahraich and order dated 16.03.2023 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Payagpur, District Bahraich are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner due opportunity of hearing.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 KR [Alok Mathur,J.] RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench