High Court · 2025
Case Details
the appellate authority has duly considered all the contentions of the petitioner and categorically recorded the fact that the spot inspection was conducted in the presence of the petitioner but still he has not filed any document which may indicate that either he is not encroaching upon Gata No.3357 or that the land on which the construction has been made, is not on Gata No.3357.
8. From the aforesaid material, I find that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the construction of the petitioner is existing on Gata No.3357 which has been brought forth in the inspection report of the revenue authority as well as consolidation authority dated 08.04.2024 which was conducted in presence of the petitioner. I find that all the grounds raised by the petitioner were duly considered by the Tehsildar, Raebareli as well as the appellate authority. Accordingly, I further find that there is no other ground taken by the petitioner either before the authorities or before this Court indicating that either construction is restricted to the land owned by him and does not extent to the Gaon Sabha land and hence do not find any infirmity in both the impugned orders.
9. Accordingly, in exercise of power under Article 226, I do not find any ground to interfere.
10. Lastly, one ground has been made by the petitioner with regard to the quantum of the fine imposed upon, though no pleadings in this regard are available and only oral submissions have been made by the petitioner that the amount of penalty which is Rs.6,30,000/- is highly excessive and no reasons for the same is being given.
11. Accordingly, without interfering in the impugned orders, in case any application is made by the petitioner, the respondents shall duly give an opportunity the method on the basis of which the penalty has been calculated
12. In light of above, the petition stands dismissed.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 829, but I find that there is substantial compliance of the directions of this Court and provisions of Sections 67 duly complied. I find that the spot inspection was conducted in presence of the petitioner and either before the authority below or before this Court, I do not find that any objection was filed to the said report. Accordingly, the benefit of the case of Rishipal Singh (supra) could not be admissible to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the present case. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 30.7.2025 KR RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
the appellate authority has duly considered all the contentions of the petitioner and categorically recorded the fact that the spot inspection was conducted in the presence of the petitioner but still he has not filed any document which may indicate that either he is not encroaching upon Gata No.3357 or that the land on which the construction has been made, is not on Gata No.3357.
8. From the aforesaid material, I find that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the construction of the petitioner is existing on Gata No.3357 which has been brought forth in the inspection report of the revenue authority as well as consolidation authority dated 08.04.2024 which was conducted in presence of the petitioner. I find that all the grounds raised by the petitioner were duly considered by the Tehsildar, Raebareli as well as the appellate authority. Accordingly, I further find that there is no other ground taken by the petitioner either before the authorities or before this Court indicating that either construction is restricted to the land owned by him and does not extent to the Gaon Sabha land and hence do not find any infirmity in both the impugned orders.
9. Accordingly, in exercise of power under Article 226, I do not find any ground to interfere.
10. Lastly, one ground has been made by the petitioner with regard to the quantum of the fine imposed upon, though no pleadings in this regard are available and only oral submissions have been made by the petitioner that the amount of penalty which is Rs.6,30,000/- is highly excessive and no reasons for the same is being given.
11. Accordingly, without interfering in the impugned orders, in case any application is made by the petitioner, the respondents shall duly give an opportunity the method on the basis of which the penalty has been calculated
12. In light of above, the petition stands dismissed.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 829, but I find that there is substantial compliance of the directions of this Court and provisions of Sections 67 duly complied. I find that the spot inspection was conducted in presence of the petitioner and either before the authority below or before this Court, I do not find that any objection was filed to the said report. Accordingly, the benefit of the case of Rishipal Singh (supra) could not be admissible to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the present case. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 30.7.2025 KR RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench