High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of State- respondent No.s 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey for respondent No.5.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner being a poor landless agricultural farmer had moved an application and was allotted patta on 5.6.1983 by the Land Management Committee, Gram Sabha, Matka, Tehsil/Pargana Salon, District Rae Bareli for residential purposes of gata No.616 Min. measuring area 0-1-0. It is stated that the petitioner had taken possession of the said land and had also constructed a kachcha house in the year 1997. It is further stated that the petitioner has been in possession over the said property for the last 27 years when on the basis of a report submitted by the Lekhpal on 10.2.2007 a case under Section 122 B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was initiated against the petitioner that the petitioner has encroached upon the land situated at gata No.616/0.013 hectare and caused damage to the government property.

3. The petitioner had appeared in the proceedings and also filed his objections. In his objections he had filed a copy of the patta allotted to him but it seems that on account of some serious illness the petitioner could not appear before the Tehsildar to prosecute the case where in his absence the statement of Lekhpal was recorded on 8.7.2013 and the matter was finally decided against the petitioner on 4.10.2023. The petitioner approached the court sometime in December, 2023 on coming to know about the ex-parte order and moved an application for recall. In his application for recall he has sated that he was regularly prosecuting the said case but suddenly he suffered from high fever also contacted jaundice due to which he was under treatment for more than two months and accordingly for the said reason could not appear in the proceedings and accordingly prayed for recall of the ex-parte order.

4. Tehsildar, duly considered the entire merits of the controversy and rejected the application for recall only on the ground that the petitioner had not enclosed documents also along with the said application. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision agaisnt the order of Tehsildar on 10.2.2025 which has also been rejected by means of order dated 25.6.2025 and accordingly both the orders, namely, order dated 10.2.2025 and 25.6.2025 have been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the reasons for recall was not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner it was open for the Tehsildar to have rejected his application and in such circumstances there was no occasion to enter into the merits of the controversy. A perusal of the order dated 10.2.2025 would indicate that merits of the controversy has been observed by him to effect that entire order when he has relied upon the report of the Lekhpal where according to him he was not aware of any patta allotted in favour of the petitioner.

6. It is pertinent to note that the Tehsildar in his order has clearly stated that the petitioner had not enclosed copy of the patta along with the application for recall as well as in his objections filed on the notice issued in the proceedings under Section 122 B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Despite the fact that the patta was part of the proceedings relied by the Tehsildar himself but surprisingly while rejecting the application of the petitioner he has stated that the petitioner had not enclosed any document with regard to patta. Clearly the Tehsildar has contradicted himself while passing the said order against the petitioner.

7. The revisional authority has rejected the finding recorded by the Tehsildar and rejected the revision.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that both the orders are illegal, arbitrary and perverse. He submits that the petitioner was granted patta being a poor landless villager and had appeared in the proceedings under Section 122 B before the Tehsildar and duly filed objections which demonstrate that he was fully entitled to the land which was subject matter of proceedings under Section 122 B. He states that he had filed copy of the patta allotted to the petitioner on 5.6.1983 but instead of accepting the objection of the petitioner that he was not illegal encroacher, in a most illegal and arbitrary manner the application of the petitioner was rejected ex-parte on 4.10.2023. When the petitioner moved an application for recall within two months after a delay of one month and 22 days which is not a substantially long length of time and instead of recalling the ex-parte proceedings justified his previous ex- parte proceeding.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts, we find that the petitioner had given satisfactory explanation for his non appearance before the Tehsildar. As far as merits of the case are concerned, we find that the findings recorded by the Tehsildar are perverse and though there was no occasion for him to have decided on merits in absence of appearance of the petitioner still holding that the petitioner has not produced copy of the patta was clearly arbitrary and perverse and accordingly on both the counts the impugned orders suffer from manifest error of law and facts and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 4.10.2013 and 10.2.205 suffer from manifest error of law and fact whereby he has recorded perverse finding with regard to patta granted in favour of the petitioner and arbitrarily rejected the application for recall.

10. It is for this reason that the revisional order is also arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 4.10.2013, 10.2.2025 and 25.6.2025 are set aside.

11. The matter is remitted back to the Tehsildar for being decided afresh in accordance with law. While deciding the matter the Tehsildar shall look into the facts and the material relied upon by the petitioner which has already been filed by him and take the same into consideration. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 20.8.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of State- respondent No.s 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey for respondent No.5.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner being a poor landless agricultural farmer had moved an application and was allotted patta on 5.6.1983 by the Land Management Committee, Gram Sabha, Matka, Tehsil/Pargana Salon, District Rae Bareli for residential purposes of gata No.616 Min. measuring area 0-1-0. It is stated that the petitioner had taken possession of the said land and had also constructed a kachcha house in the year 1997. It is further stated that the petitioner has been in possession over the said property for the last 27 years when on the basis of a report submitted by the Lekhpal on 10.2.2007 a case under Section 122 B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was initiated against the petitioner that the petitioner has encroached upon the land situated at gata No.616/0.013 hectare and caused damage to the government property.

3. The petitioner had appeared in the proceedings and also filed his objections. In his objections he had filed a copy of the patta allotted to him but it seems that on account of some serious illness the petitioner could not appear before the Tehsildar to prosecute the case where in his absence the statement of Lekhpal was recorded on 8.7.2013 and the matter was finally decided against the petitioner on 4.10.2023. The petitioner approached the court sometime in December, 2023 on coming to know about the ex-parte order and moved an application for recall. In his application for recall he has sated that he was regularly prosecuting the said case but suddenly he suffered from high fever also contacted jaundice due to which he was under treatment for more than two months and accordingly for the said reason could not appear in the proceedings and accordingly prayed for recall of the ex-parte order.

4. Tehsildar, duly considered the entire merits of the controversy and rejected the application for recall only on the ground that the petitioner had not enclosed documents also along with the said application. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision agaisnt the order of Tehsildar on 10.2.2025 which has also been rejected by means of order dated 25.6.2025 and accordingly both the orders, namely, order dated 10.2.2025 and 25.6.2025 have been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the reasons for recall was not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner it was open for the Tehsildar to have rejected his application and in such circumstances there was no occasion to enter into the merits of the controversy. A perusal of the order dated 10.2.2025 would indicate that merits of the controversy has been observed by him to effect that entire order when he has relied upon the report of the Lekhpal where according to him he was not aware of any patta allotted in favour of the petitioner.

6. It is pertinent to note that the Tehsildar in his order has clearly stated that the petitioner had not enclosed copy of the patta along with the application for recall as well as in his objections filed on the notice issued in the proceedings under Section 122 B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Despite the fact that the patta was part of the proceedings relied by the Tehsildar himself but surprisingly while rejecting the application of the petitioner he has stated that the petitioner had not enclosed any document with regard to patta. Clearly the Tehsildar has contradicted himself while passing the said order against the petitioner.

7. The revisional authority has rejected the finding recorded by the Tehsildar and rejected the revision.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that both the orders are illegal, arbitrary and perverse. He submits that the petitioner was granted patta being a poor landless villager and had appeared in the proceedings under Section 122 B before the Tehsildar and duly filed objections which demonstrate that he was fully entitled to the land which was subject matter of proceedings under Section 122 B. He states that he had filed copy of the patta allotted to the petitioner on 5.6.1983 but instead of accepting the objection of the petitioner that he was not illegal encroacher, in a most illegal and arbitrary manner the application of the petitioner was rejected ex-parte on 4.10.2023. When the petitioner moved an application for recall within two months after a delay of one month and 22 days which is not a substantially long length of time and instead of recalling the ex-parte proceedings justified his previous ex- parte proceeding.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts, we find that the petitioner had given satisfactory explanation for his non appearance before the Tehsildar. As far as merits of the case are concerned, we find that the findings recorded by the Tehsildar are perverse and though there was no occasion for him to have decided on merits in absence of appearance of the petitioner still holding that the petitioner has not produced copy of the patta was clearly arbitrary and perverse and accordingly on both the counts the impugned orders suffer from manifest error of law and facts and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 4.10.2013 and 10.2.205 suffer from manifest error of law and fact whereby he has recorded perverse finding with regard to patta granted in favour of the petitioner and arbitrarily rejected the application for recall.

10. It is for this reason that the revisional order is also arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 4.10.2013, 10.2.2025 and 25.6.2025 are set aside.

11. The matter is remitted back to the Tehsildar for being decided afresh in accordance with law. While deciding the matter the Tehsildar shall look into the facts and the material relied upon by the petitioner which has already been filed by him and take the same into consideration. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 20.8.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench