Ramkumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Barabanki

1. Heard Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the dispute in the present case pertains to the land situated at Gata No. 379 which is in occupation of the petitioner stating that the same has been in occupation from the time of his ancestors and there are 50 mango trees and a temporary construction on the said land. He has further submitted that a regular suit has been preferred by the mother of the petitioner before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Haidergarh, Barabanki which is pending and it is with regard to the same land and that on the basis of a report given by area Lekhpal proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner.

3. With regard to the said proceedings, it has been stated that by means of an ex-parte order dated 14.11.2023 the Tehsildar (Judicial) / Assistant Collector-I, Haidergarh, Barabanki had decided the said matter against the petitioner and passed necessary orders for eviction and imposition of penalty. It has further been stated that as the order dated 14.11.2023 was an ex-parte order the petitioner has filed an application for recall U/S 209 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is pending consideration.

4. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner was in receipt of a notice threatening to demolish the construction of the 2 WRIC No. 10658 of 2025 petitioner on the disputed land and accordingly a writ petition was filed before this Court being Writ Petition No. 20306 (MS) of 2021 which was disposed of on 13.09.2021 where this Court has noticed that at that time proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were pending and during pendency of the said proceedings, no action could have been taken by the respondents with regard to demolition of the alleged unauthorized occupation and accordingly notice dated 13.08.2021 was set aside and directions were given to the respondents to take action only when necessary orders are passed U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. It seems that the respondents were not deterred by the order dated

13.09.2021 and they proceeded to pass yet another notice dated

13.06.2022 again threatening take action against illegal construction raised by the petitioner. But it seems that the better sense prevail and the respondents themselves withdrew the notice dated

13.06.2022 and the same has been recorded when another writ petition preferred before this Court challenging the notice dated 10.06.2022 and in Writ C No. 3815 of 2022 where this Court was informed about withdrawal of notice. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has again approached this Court stating that the respondents are threatening the petitioner for eviction and trying to vacate the premises in pursuance of the previous order dated 10.06.2023, relevant pleadings have been made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court by means of order dated

07.11.2025 had directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Haidergarh, District Barabanki to appear in person and also to file a personal affidavit as to why the respondents are trying to proceed against the petitioner prior to conclusion of the proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and in teeth of the directions of this Court in its orders dated 13.09.2022 and 28.06.2022. It is on direction of this Court that Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haidergarh has appeared in person before this Court and also filed his affidavit.

7. According to the affidavit, Gata No. 379 in Village Kakari Tehsil Haidergarh is recorded as the old parti and according to the said affidavit it apparently belongs to the gaon sabha / government land. Further 3 WRIC No. 10658 of 2025 averments have been made with regard to pendency of the recall application preferred by the petitioner against the order passed U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and in para No. 9, it has been stated that action was taken against the petitioner on 02.09.2025 with regard to remaining portion of Gata No. 379 measuring 0.0970 hect. where the petitioner is again trying to encroach the land by putting wires. It has been stated that it is only to secure the land of the gaon sabha, action has been taken by the respondents.

8. When a pointed query has been made as to under which provision the SDM would be entitled to straightway approach or direct removal of the encroachment, it is stated that it is on consent of the parties the action of removal of wire has taken place.

9. From the report as well as annexures, this Court does not find any consent nor any adherence to any provision of law either U/S 133 of Cr.P.C. or any other provision by which action could be taken by the respondents.

10. Apart from the above, this Court finds that administrative authorities do not have any right to decide any dispute of possession, ownership or title except in accordance with law and taking action merely on some application not supportted by law is not expected from such authorities. Apart from the above, this Court finds that there is regular interference by this Court in the present dispute and the respondents who are in clear knowledge of the orders passed by this Court have again resorted to removal of an encroachment without adhering to any of the provisions of law, such an action by the respondents is clearly deprecated. Respondents have submitted that they would not proceed against the petitioner except in accordance with law.

11. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents should proceed against the petitioner only after following provisions of law and not otherwise.

12. Considering the discussion hereinabove, let the District Magistrate, Barabanki look into the matter and submit his report with regard to the action taken against the authorities who have patently acted de hors the 4 WRIC No. 10658 of 2025 provisions of law as well as contrary to the directions issued by this Court repeatedly. Let the report be filed before this Court within next four weeks through Senior Registrar.

13. Appearance of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haidergarh is dispensed with. November 18, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the dispute in the present case pertains to the land situated at Gata No. 379 which is in occupation of the petitioner stating that the same has been in occupation from the time of his ancestors and there are 50 mango trees and a temporary construction on the said land. He has further submitted that a regular suit has been preferred by the mother of the petitioner before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Haidergarh, Barabanki which is pending and it is with regard to the same land and that on the basis of a report given by area Lekhpal proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner.

3. With regard to the said proceedings, it has been stated that by means of an ex-parte order dated 14.11.2023 the Tehsildar (Judicial) / Assistant Collector-I, Haidergarh, Barabanki had decided the said matter against the petitioner and passed necessary orders for eviction and imposition of penalty. It has further been stated that as the order dated 14.11.2023 was an ex-parte order the petitioner has filed an application for recall U/S 209 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is pending consideration.

4. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner was in receipt of a notice threatening to demolish the construction of the 2 WRIC No. 10658 of 2025 petitioner on the disputed land and accordingly a writ petition was filed before this Court being Writ Petition No. 20306 (MS) of 2021 which was disposed of on 13.09.2021 where this Court has noticed that at that time proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were pending and during pendency of the said proceedings, no action could have been taken by the respondents with regard to demolition of the alleged unauthorized occupation and accordingly notice dated 13.08.2021 was set aside and directions were given to the respondents to take action only when necessary orders are passed U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. It seems that the respondents were not deterred by the order dated

13.09.2021 and they proceeded to pass yet another notice dated

13.06.2022 again threatening take action against illegal construction raised by the petitioner. But it seems that the better sense prevail and the respondents themselves withdrew the notice dated

13.06.2022 and the same has been recorded when another writ petition preferred before this Court challenging the notice dated 10.06.2022 and in Writ C No. 3815 of 2022 where this Court was informed about withdrawal of notice. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has again approached this Court stating that the respondents are threatening the petitioner for eviction and trying to vacate the premises in pursuance of the previous order dated 10.06.2023, relevant pleadings have been made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court by means of order dated

07.11.2025 had directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Haidergarh, District Barabanki to appear in person and also to file a personal affidavit as to why the respondents are trying to proceed against the petitioner prior to conclusion of the proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and in teeth of the directions of this Court in its orders dated 13.09.2022 and 28.06.2022. It is on direction of this Court that Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haidergarh has appeared in person before this Court and also filed his affidavit.

7. According to the affidavit, Gata No. 379 in Village Kakari Tehsil Haidergarh is recorded as the old parti and according to the said affidavit it apparently belongs to the gaon sabha / government land. Further 3 WRIC No. 10658 of 2025 averments have been made with regard to pendency of the recall application preferred by the petitioner against the order passed U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and in para No. 9, it has been stated that action was taken against the petitioner on 02.09.2025 with regard to remaining portion of Gata No. 379 measuring 0.0970 hect. where the petitioner is again trying to encroach the land by putting wires. It has been stated that it is only to secure the land of the gaon sabha, action has been taken by the respondents.

8. When a pointed query has been made as to under which provision the SDM would be entitled to straightway approach or direct removal of the encroachment, it is stated that it is on consent of the parties the action of removal of wire has taken place.

9. From the report as well as annexures, this Court does not find any consent nor any adherence to any provision of law either U/S 133 of Cr.P.C. or any other provision by which action could be taken by the respondents.

10. Apart from the above, this Court finds that administrative authorities do not have any right to decide any dispute of possession, ownership or title except in accordance with law and taking action merely on some application not supportted by law is not expected from such authorities. Apart from the above, this Court finds that there is regular interference by this Court in the present dispute and the respondents who are in clear knowledge of the orders passed by this Court have again resorted to removal of an encroachment without adhering to any of the provisions of law, such an action by the respondents is clearly deprecated. Respondents have submitted that they would not proceed against the petitioner except in accordance with law.

11. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents should proceed against the petitioner only after following provisions of law and not otherwise.

12. Considering the discussion hereinabove, let the District Magistrate, Barabanki look into the matter and submit his report with regard to the action taken against the authorities who have patently acted de hors the 4 WRIC No. 10658 of 2025 provisions of law as well as contrary to the directions issued by this Court repeatedly. Let the report be filed before this Court within next four weeks through Senior Registrar.

13. Appearance of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haidergarh is dispensed with. November 18, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench