High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Rahmutun Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Renu Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing for respondents no. 1 to 4 and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondents no. 5 and 6.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.3.2025, passed by the Assistant Collector First Class/ Tehsildar Mlihabad, Lucknow, in exercise of powers under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, wherein he has held that the petitioner is an illegal encroachment upon Gata No. 582- Sa, area 0.013 hectares, situated at Village Mandauli, Pargana and Tehsil Malihabad, District Lucknow.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted the disputed plot for housing purposes on 18.10.2006, subsequently there was certain complaints that the procedure for allotment of Patta was not followed and consequently proceedings under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act initiated against the petitioner for cancellation of patta.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by means of order dated 4.3.2008 the patta granted to the petitioner, was cancelled. Revision against the order of cancellation was filed and the matter was remanded back before the Assistant Collector First Class by means of the order dated 26.09.2014. It has been submitted that the Competent Authority in the remand proceedings has again rejected the objections, preferred by the petitioner and passed the order for cancellation of patta by means of order dated 29.2.2024. Against which, the petitioner has again filed a revision, which is pending consideration before Commissioner, (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. He has submitted that during pendency of the proceedings assailing the order of cancelling the patta, the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code were initiated against the petitioner the Additional and even in those proceedings it was stated that because the patta of the petitioner has been cancelled consequently, she becomes an unauthorized person and not entitled for occupation of Gaon Sabha land and such occupation has been held to be illegal and orders for eviction and imposition of penalty has been passed.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that very basis for initiating the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, which is the order of cancellation of patta which still under the consideration in revisional proceedings before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow and it is during the pendency of the said proceedings that the respondents are seeking to implement the order passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, to demolish the house of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has all likelihood of succeeding the revisional proceedings and in case the revision is allowed the order of cancellation of patta would cease to operate and in these circumstances, the entire proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code would become nullity and no-nest and therefore, it is submitted that during the pendency of the revisional proceedings the respondents should be restrained from demolishing the house constructed on the disputed land.

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

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court of the considered view that once the respondent has granted the patta in favour of the petitioner on 18.10.2006, which subsequently has been cancelled but the order of cancellation is subjudice in the revisional proceedings before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Divisional, Lucknow. It is also noteworthy that the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code has also been initiated on the ground that patta in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. Once the very basis of proceedings against the petitioner for cancellation of patta is subjudice in revisional proceedings before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, then certainly the order passed in the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code should not be implemented and the respondents should restrain themselves till such time, the revision proceedings are concluded.

8. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner confines his prayer for a suitable direction to the respondents not to demolish his construction in pursuance of the order dated 5.3.2025, till the revisional proceedings are finalized.

9. Ho0n'ble the Supreme Court of India has time and again reiterated that demolition should the last resort. " Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, In Re, (2025) 5 SCC1:

81. The right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21. Depriving such innocent people of their right to life by removing shelter from their heads, in our considered view, would be wholly unconstitutional.

89. It i also to be noted that the construction of a house has an aspect of socio-economic rights. For an average citizen, the construction of a house is often the culmination of years of hard work, dreams, and aspirations. A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security, and a future. Having a house or a roof over one's head gives satisfaction to any person. It gives a sense of dignity and a sense of belonging. If this is to be taken away, then the authority must be satisfied that this is the only option available."

10. I find merits in the submissions made by the petitioner, accordingly without adjudicating upon the merits of the order dated 5.3.2025, passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, I restrained the respondents from implementing the order dated 5.3.2025 till the revisional proceedings are finalized by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Case No. 1250 of 2024.

11. Let the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, be decided the revision, preferred by the petitioner, expeditiously say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, in accordance with law, in case there is no legal impediment. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the revisional proceedings and shall not take any adjournment.

12. It is made clear that once the appropriate order is finally passed by the Revisional Authority, the State for demolition shall seize clearly and the matter shall be covered by the order passed by the Revisional Authority.

13. With the aforesaid directions petition stands disposed of. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Muk MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Smt. Rahmutun Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Renu Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing for respondents no. 1 to 4 and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondents no. 5 and 6.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.3.2025, passed by the Assistant Collector First Class/ Tehsildar Mlihabad, Lucknow, in exercise of powers under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, wherein he has held that the petitioner is an illegal encroachment upon Gata No. 582- Sa, area 0.013 hectares, situated at Village Mandauli, Pargana and Tehsil Malihabad, District Lucknow.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted the disputed plot for housing purposes on 18.10.2006, subsequently there was certain complaints that the procedure for allotment of Patta was not followed and consequently proceedings under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act initiated against the petitioner for cancellation of patta.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by means of order dated 4.3.2008 the patta granted to the petitioner, was cancelled. Revision against the order of cancellation was filed and the matter was remanded back before the Assistant Collector First Class by means of the order dated 26.09.2014. It has been submitted that the Competent Authority in the remand proceedings has again rejected the objections, preferred by the petitioner and passed the order for cancellation of patta by means of order dated 29.2.2024. Against which, the petitioner has again filed a revision, which is pending consideration before Commissioner, (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. He has submitted that during pendency of the proceedings assailing the order of cancelling the patta, the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code were initiated against the petitioner the Additional and even in those proceedings it was stated that because the patta of the petitioner has been cancelled consequently, she becomes an unauthorized person and not entitled for occupation of Gaon Sabha land and such occupation has been held to be illegal and orders for eviction and imposition of penalty has been passed.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that very basis for initiating the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, which is the order of cancellation of patta which still under the consideration in revisional proceedings before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow and it is during the pendency of the said proceedings that the respondents are seeking to implement the order passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, to demolish the house of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has all likelihood of succeeding the revisional proceedings and in case the revision is allowed the order of cancellation of patta would cease to operate and in these circumstances, the entire proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code would become nullity and no-nest and therefore, it is submitted that during the pendency of the revisional proceedings the respondents should be restrained from demolishing the house constructed on the disputed land.

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

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court of the considered view that once the respondent has granted the patta in favour of the petitioner on 18.10.2006, which subsequently has been cancelled but the order of cancellation is subjudice in the revisional proceedings before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Divisional, Lucknow. It is also noteworthy that the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code has also been initiated on the ground that patta in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. Once the very basis of proceedings against the petitioner for cancellation of patta is subjudice in revisional proceedings before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, then certainly the order passed in the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code should not be implemented and the respondents should restrain themselves till such time, the revision proceedings are concluded.

8. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner confines his prayer for a suitable direction to the respondents not to demolish his construction in pursuance of the order dated 5.3.2025, till the revisional proceedings are finalized.

9. Ho0n'ble the Supreme Court of India has time and again reiterated that demolition should the last resort. " Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, In Re, (2025) 5 SCC1:

81. The right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21. Depriving such innocent people of their right to life by removing shelter from their heads, in our considered view, would be wholly unconstitutional.

89. It i also to be noted that the construction of a house has an aspect of socio-economic rights. For an average citizen, the construction of a house is often the culmination of years of hard work, dreams, and aspirations. A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security, and a future. Having a house or a roof over one's head gives satisfaction to any person. It gives a sense of dignity and a sense of belonging. If this is to be taken away, then the authority must be satisfied that this is the only option available."

10. I find merits in the submissions made by the petitioner, accordingly without adjudicating upon the merits of the order dated 5.3.2025, passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, I restrained the respondents from implementing the order dated 5.3.2025 till the revisional proceedings are finalized by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Case No. 1250 of 2024.

11. Let the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, be decided the revision, preferred by the petitioner, expeditiously say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, in accordance with law, in case there is no legal impediment. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the revisional proceedings and shall not take any adjournment.

12. It is made clear that once the appropriate order is finally passed by the Revisional Authority, the State for demolition shall seize clearly and the matter shall be covered by the order passed by the Revisional Authority.

13. With the aforesaid directions petition stands disposed of. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Muk MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench