Shiv Poojan And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of

1. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and Sri Ajay Kumar, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 9.

2. The dispute in the present case pertains to the order passed by Sub- Divisional Magistrate in proceedings U/S 198(2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act where he has dropped the proceedings against the accused who are the predecessor in interest of the petitioners but has further directed vacation of the petitioners from the disputed land.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the land situated at Gata No. 841/8, Village Chahoda Shahpur, Pargana Bidahar, Tehsil Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar is recorded as Banjar in the revenue records and it is alleged that the said land was not vacant and was in occupation of the petitioners and the ancestors. It has been submitted that subsequently proceedings U/S 198 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated by the respondents and the land was allotted in favour of private respondents by the Land Management Committee on 31.12.1975.

4. Considering the fact that according to State-respondents, the petitioners had illegally occupied gaon sabha land which is recorded as Banjar, 2 WRIC No. 10850 of 2025 proceedings U/S 198(2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated sometimes in 2009-2010 where the predecessor in interests of the petitioners were made accused and were initiated by Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that it is their case that they are occupying the said land for extremely long length of time and consequently had filed a suit U/S 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act with a prayer for a direction that land occupied by the petitioners may be declared to be within Abadi. It is the case of the petitioners that in the said suit proceedings an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners by the S.D.M. but the said suit has been dismissed in default on 21.01.2021 and the restoration was also dismissed in default and subsequently another application for restoration is pending.

6. Accordingly, it is noticed that as per undisputed facts of the present case, as per the revenue records, the said land is recorded as Banjar which is a gaon sabha land and the petitioners are occupying the said land. The said land was subjected to allotment in favour of private respondents and after 50 years the possession could not be handed over to the allottees and therefore proceedings U/S 198(2-A) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated.

7. There is again no dispute that there is no material or evidence on record which can indicate that the petitioners have any right, interest or title in the disputed land. The suit which was preferred by them has been dismissed for want of prosecution and the application for recall is pending. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that initially the proceedings were initiated against his father but after his death and after the petitioners attaining majority, they have filed an application for recall which is pending consideration.

8. With regard to the validity of the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by S.D.M., it is noticed that once it has come on record that all the accused against whom the proceedings were initiated have died, the proceedings stands abated. This Court does not find any error in the order to that extent.

9. Apart from the above, he has further passed the order that action for 3 WRIC No. 10850 of 2025 eviction shall be taken against all the encroachers on the said land. With regard to the said order, this Court is of the considered view that once patta has been granted in favour of any individual then the nature of the land does not change and the land still continues to be the State land though the occupation on the said land is in favour of the patta holders. Any illegal encroachment upon the allotted land, it is the duty of the revenue authorities to ensure that the encroachers are removed and the land is restored in the name of patta holders.

10. This Court further finds in case it is the case of the petitioners that the said land should be settled in their favour then this Court finds that proceedings U/S 122B(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code could have been initiated where it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have demonstrated that the land belongs to a particular category on which the rights of the encroachers can be settled subject to the demonstrating that the same has been in occupation prior to the cut off date. This Court finds that no such proceedings have been initiated by the petitioners and merely a suit U/S 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been filed seeking a declaration that the land of which occupation has been made be declared to be land within the Abadi.

11. It is further noticed that there is no dispute that the petitioners are in knowledge of the allotment of the said land in favour of private respondents and even if the petitioners seek to claim any right interest and title on the said land it was open to them to have demonstrated their rights and proceedings U/S 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. In this regard also this Court finds that nor is there any application or any proceedings initiated by the petitioners and in case any application has been made by the petitioners U/S 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it was open for them to have demonstrated the right interest or title in the said land or that any rights ought to have been settled in favour of the petitioners on the basis of occupation on the gaon sabha land.

12. Accordingly, it is for the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that petitioners have merely encroached upon the land which is recorded as a Banjar and prima facie this Court does not find any ground for legalizing the aforesaid encroachment. This Court further finds that the order has 4 WRIC No. 10850 of 2025 been passed by S.D.M. after receiving the report from revenue officials which had indicated that it is the petitioners who are occupying on the said land. This court further finds that only the application for recall preferred by the petitioners is pending before Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

13. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to decide the application for recall, if any, preferred by the petitioner pending before him in Case No. 462/2008-2009 with expedition, say, within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and in case he finds merit in the application for recall then he shall proceed to consider grant of any interim order in favour of the petitioners and in case the application for recall is rejected then the respondents shall proceed to abide and comply the order dated 17.07.2025.

14. Subject to aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed. November 25, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and Sri Ajay Kumar, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 9.

2. The dispute in the present case pertains to the order passed by Sub- Divisional Magistrate in proceedings U/S 198(2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act where he has dropped the proceedings against the accused who are the predecessor in interest of the petitioners but has further directed vacation of the petitioners from the disputed land.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the land situated at Gata No. 841/8, Village Chahoda Shahpur, Pargana Bidahar, Tehsil Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar is recorded as Banjar in the revenue records and it is alleged that the said land was not vacant and was in occupation of the petitioners and the ancestors. It has been submitted that subsequently proceedings U/S 198 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated by the respondents and the land was allotted in favour of private respondents by the Land Management Committee on 31.12.1975.

4. Considering the fact that according to State-respondents, the petitioners had illegally occupied gaon sabha land which is recorded as Banjar, 2 WRIC No. 10850 of 2025 proceedings U/S 198(2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated sometimes in 2009-2010 where the predecessor in interests of the petitioners were made accused and were initiated by Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that it is their case that they are occupying the said land for extremely long length of time and consequently had filed a suit U/S 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act with a prayer for a direction that land occupied by the petitioners may be declared to be within Abadi. It is the case of the petitioners that in the said suit proceedings an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners by the S.D.M. but the said suit has been dismissed in default on 21.01.2021 and the restoration was also dismissed in default and subsequently another application for restoration is pending.

6. Accordingly, it is noticed that as per undisputed facts of the present case, as per the revenue records, the said land is recorded as Banjar which is a gaon sabha land and the petitioners are occupying the said land. The said land was subjected to allotment in favour of private respondents and after 50 years the possession could not be handed over to the allottees and therefore proceedings U/S 198(2-A) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated.

7. There is again no dispute that there is no material or evidence on record which can indicate that the petitioners have any right, interest or title in the disputed land. The suit which was preferred by them has been dismissed for want of prosecution and the application for recall is pending. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that initially the proceedings were initiated against his father but after his death and after the petitioners attaining majority, they have filed an application for recall which is pending consideration.

8. With regard to the validity of the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by S.D.M., it is noticed that once it has come on record that all the accused against whom the proceedings were initiated have died, the proceedings stands abated. This Court does not find any error in the order to that extent.

9. Apart from the above, he has further passed the order that action for 3 WRIC No. 10850 of 2025 eviction shall be taken against all the encroachers on the said land. With regard to the said order, this Court is of the considered view that once patta has been granted in favour of any individual then the nature of the land does not change and the land still continues to be the State land though the occupation on the said land is in favour of the patta holders. Any illegal encroachment upon the allotted land, it is the duty of the revenue authorities to ensure that the encroachers are removed and the land is restored in the name of patta holders.

10. This Court further finds in case it is the case of the petitioners that the said land should be settled in their favour then this Court finds that proceedings U/S 122B(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code could have been initiated where it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have demonstrated that the land belongs to a particular category on which the rights of the encroachers can be settled subject to the demonstrating that the same has been in occupation prior to the cut off date. This Court finds that no such proceedings have been initiated by the petitioners and merely a suit U/S 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been filed seeking a declaration that the land of which occupation has been made be declared to be land within the Abadi.

11. It is further noticed that there is no dispute that the petitioners are in knowledge of the allotment of the said land in favour of private respondents and even if the petitioners seek to claim any right interest and title on the said land it was open to them to have demonstrated their rights and proceedings U/S 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. In this regard also this Court finds that nor is there any application or any proceedings initiated by the petitioners and in case any application has been made by the petitioners U/S 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it was open for them to have demonstrated the right interest or title in the said land or that any rights ought to have been settled in favour of the petitioners on the basis of occupation on the gaon sabha land.

12. Accordingly, it is for the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that petitioners have merely encroached upon the land which is recorded as a Banjar and prima facie this Court does not find any ground for legalizing the aforesaid encroachment. This Court further finds that the order has 4 WRIC No. 10850 of 2025 been passed by S.D.M. after receiving the report from revenue officials which had indicated that it is the petitioners who are occupying on the said land. This court further finds that only the application for recall preferred by the petitioners is pending before Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

13. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to decide the application for recall, if any, preferred by the petitioner pending before him in Case No. 462/2008-2009 with expedition, say, within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and in case he finds merit in the application for recall then he shall proceed to consider grant of any interim order in favour of the petitioners and in case the application for recall is rejected then the respondents shall proceed to abide and comply the order dated 17.07.2025.

14. Subject to aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed. November 25, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench