Rama Devi And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners presses the application for amendment.

3. Further, in view of the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of application for amendment, the application for amendment is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is directed to make necessary amendment in the memo of writ petition during course of the day. (Order on Application for Impleadment)

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. Learned counsel impleadment. for petitioners presses the application

3. Further, in view of the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of 2 WRIC No. 11274 of 2025 application for impleadment, the application for impleadment is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is directed to make necessary impleadment in the memo of writ petition during course of the day. (Order on Writ Petition)

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the proceedings initiated against respondent No. 5 i.e. Dilip Kumar Sharma, U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for illegally occupying and raising a permanent construction on Gata No. 886 situated at Village - Fatehpur Saidhari, Tehsil - Lakhimpur, District Kheri.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that this land in fact is within 220 ft. from the Highway, and consequently, belongs to the Public Works Department and he had taken permission from the Public Works Department for raising a construction. He submits that said permission was granted on 14/11/1984. He has further submitted that proceedings under Section 115-B and 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were also initiated against the petitioner in 1987 and when he pointed out that it is a Public Works Department which has control over the said land, the proceedings were dropped by means of the order dated 23/10/1987. It has further been submitted that it is with regard to the same land that proceedings have been initiated by the respondents under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code against respondent no. 5. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was not a party and the petitioner claiming themselves to be the owner of the said land and had moved an application for impleadment, which was rejected by the Tehsildar of 13/05/2025.

4. Before the Tehsildar, in the application for impleadment preferred by the petitioner, it was his case that they have given the said shop on rent to respondent No. 5 against whom proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code have been initiated and in fact, it is the petitioner who is the owner of the said land, and therefore, he should be made party. 3 WRIC No. 11274 of 2025

5. The Tehsildar while rejecting the contention of the petitioners has noticed the fact that the petitioners have given the said building on rent to respondent No. 5. In support of which he has only produced certain uncertified receipts indicating that they have taken rent from respondent No. 5. The Tehsildar further found that no signatures of respondent No. 5 were present on the said receipt nor was any agreement annexed by the petitioners along with their application for impleadment and accordingly found that he could not either produced any document indicating that they had better right, interest or title over the said land or that they were in fact landlord and therefore rejected the application for impleadment.

6. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2025 had filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was also rejected by order dated 23.07.2025 affirming the order of the Tehsildar. The petitioners did not challenge the said order initially while filing the writ petition but subsequently it is by means of an amendment they have sought to challenge the order dated 23.07.2025 in the present writ petition.

7. In proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against respondent No. 5, the Tehsildar by means of his order dated 23.07.2025 has that the land is recorded as Banjar land which is a gaon sabha land while the only defence taken by respondent No. 5 was that his construction is existing since 25 years. The Tehsildar was of the view that respondent No. 5 could not demonstrate any right, interest or title on the said land from which it could demonstrate that the land has vested in him in accordance with law and held him to have illegally encroached upon the said land and accordingly has passed order for eviction and imposition of penalty. Subsequently the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of eviction issued again respondent no. 5. The District Magistrate has not gone into the aspect as to whether the said appeal was maintainable at the behest of the petitioners despite the fact that neither was the proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 initiated against him and further even the application for impleadment has already been rejected on 13.05.2025 and subsequently revision against the order dated 13.05.2025 had also been rejected by Board of Revenue on 23.07.2025.

8. A perusal of the appeal preferred by petitioners indicates that there is no mention in fact the application for impleadment was rejected on 13.05.2025 and the revision against the said order has also been rejected on 23.07.2025. The District Magistrate has considered the contentions 4 WRIC No. 11274 of 2025 raised by the petitioners and found that there was no material on record which could indicate that the petitioners have any right, interest or title over the said property and has rejected the appeal by means of his order dated 01.11.2025. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, in the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.07.2025, 01.11.2025, 13.05.2025 and the revisional order dated 23.07.2025.

9. The petitioners have reiterated the arguments which was raised by them before the authorities and submitted that they have been occupying this land from a very long time and permission has also been granted to him for raising construction and also that on the previous occasion proceedings for eviction were dropped and therefore in the present circumstances, the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary and the benefit of Section 67 A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 should be given to the petitioners and respondents should be directed to settle the rights in favour of the petitioners.

10. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that on the previous occasion though the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners U/S 115 B / 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the Tehsildar /Assistant Collector had merely noticed the fact that the said land was included in the notification issued by the State Government for the benefit of the Public Works Department. As permission is required for raising any construction from 220 ft. from the centre of the road and the said land fell in the said notification and accordingly he was of the view that in such matters proceedings U/S 67 A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for eviction could not be enforced. The Tehsildar did not go into the question relating to right, interest or title over the said disputed land and therefore dropped the proceedings.

11. He further submits that in any view of the matter the proceedings U/S 115-B / 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are summary in nature and submits that there is no impediment in re-initiating the proceedings in order to protect the interest the gaon sabha land in case there is any change in situation or the previous proceedings were not decided on merits. He further submits that before any of the authorities below the petitioners have not been able to show any right, interest or title on the said land and any interference shown by the Court in the present proceedings would only lend credence to the rights of the petitioners which in fact do not exist at all and therefore prayed for 5 WRIC No. 11274 of 2025 dismissal of the writ petition.

12. Apart from the above, it has been vehemently submitted that once the impleadment application and the revision against the said order has been rejected then the petitioners were not an aggrieved persons as per Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and therefore they could not prefer an appeal before the District Magistrate against the order of Tehsildar dated 31.07.2025. He further submits that petitioners did not have any locus to prefer an appeal before the District Magistrate against the order of Tehsildar inasmuch as proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against respondent No. 5 and not against the petitioners. Even otherwise, it has been stated that in case any person even he is not a party to the proceedings who may be aggrieved by the order of the trial court can file an appeal only after seeking leave of the court and in the present circumstances where the application for impleadment had already stood rejected the petitioner had no locus to file an appeal before the District Magistrate.

13. The petitioner apart from submitting that construction belong to them could not defend their right to file an appeal before the District Magistrate nor could they effectively oppose the argument raised by learned Standing Counsel nor they had locus to file an appeal once the application for impleadment was rejected order of which was upheld by the revisional court. In the present case, the petitioners have also challenged the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting their impleadment application. In this regard, it has been noticed that the Tehsildar while rejecting their application by order dated 13.05.2025 had noticed that there was not sufficient documentary evidence available on record filed by the petitioners which could indicate their right, interest or title in the said land.

14. The permission granted by the Public Works Department did not indicate the location where the said construction could be carried out and merely because the petitioners have been granted some right to construct cannot be interpreted to mean that the petitioners had become the owner of the said land merely because they have got a right to construct. It has further been noticed that as per the permission given, the construction was a temporary construction and was liable to be removed at any time on the direction of the authorities in case the said land was required for the road widening etc. 6 WRIC No. 11274 of 2025

15. It is a fair reading of the said document can be seen as merely a license to construct or raise a construction which construction itself was liable to be removed by the orders of the competent authority. This Court further finds that there is no material available on record to indicate that the said land is not a gaon sabha land and is in fact a land under control of the Public Works Department. Accordingly, this Court does not find any legal basis for the permission granted by the Public Works Department to raise a construction and merely on strength of an order whose validity itself is doubtful, no such right or ownership can vest in the petitioners over the said land. Therefore it is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 13.05.2025 or with the order dated 13.07.2025 rejecting the revision preferred against rejection of the application for impleadment.

16. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that once their revision against the application for impleadment has been rejected then they have lost all right to call themselves as an "aggrieved person" so as to enable them to file an appeal U/S 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Accordingly, the appellate order itself is illegal and arbitrary and nonest but by merely holding that the said order is illegal and arbitrary, we hasten to add that no rights in the said land would stand vested in the petitioners and accordingly even if the order of the District Magistrate dated 01.11.2025 is set aside, the order of the Tehsidar dated 31.07.2025 would stand restored and would have full effect. This Court does not wish to discuss the validity of the order dated 31.07.2025 inasmuch as the same has been passed against respondent No. 5 who certainly has his rights to file an appeal U/S 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the competent authority. But in any view of the matter no rights vests in the petitioners on the basis of order dated 31.07.2025 which if remains unchallenged can be executed against respondent No. 5.

17. In light of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 01.11.2025 is set aside. This Court upheld the validity of the order dated 31.07.2025 and affirm the orders dated 13.05.2025 and 23.07.2025. Respondents are directed to proceed in accordance with law. December 2, 2025/Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners presses the application for amendment.

3. Further, in view of the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of application for amendment, the application for amendment is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is directed to make necessary amendment in the memo of writ petition during course of the day. (Order on Application for Impleadment)

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. Learned counsel impleadment. for petitioners presses the application

3. Further, in view of the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of 2 WRIC No. 11274 of 2025 application for impleadment, the application for impleadment is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is directed to make necessary impleadment in the memo of writ petition during course of the day. (Order on Writ Petition)

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the proceedings initiated against respondent No. 5 i.e. Dilip Kumar Sharma, U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for illegally occupying and raising a permanent construction on Gata No. 886 situated at Village - Fatehpur Saidhari, Tehsil - Lakhimpur, District Kheri.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that this land in fact is within 220 ft. from the Highway, and consequently, belongs to the Public Works Department and he had taken permission from the Public Works Department for raising a construction. He submits that said permission was granted on 14/11/1984. He has further submitted that proceedings under Section 115-B and 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were also initiated against the petitioner in 1987 and when he pointed out that it is a Public Works Department which has control over the said land, the proceedings were dropped by means of the order dated 23/10/1987. It has further been submitted that it is with regard to the same land that proceedings have been initiated by the respondents under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code against respondent no. 5. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was not a party and the petitioner claiming themselves to be the owner of the said land and had moved an application for impleadment, which was rejected by the Tehsildar of 13/05/2025.

4. Before the Tehsildar, in the application for impleadment preferred by the petitioner, it was his case that they have given the said shop on rent to respondent No. 5 against whom proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code have been initiated and in fact, it is the petitioner who is the owner of the said land, and therefore, he should be made party. 3 WRIC No. 11274 of 2025

5. The Tehsildar while rejecting the contention of the petitioners has noticed the fact that the petitioners have given the said building on rent to respondent No. 5. In support of which he has only produced certain uncertified receipts indicating that they have taken rent from respondent No. 5. The Tehsildar further found that no signatures of respondent No. 5 were present on the said receipt nor was any agreement annexed by the petitioners along with their application for impleadment and accordingly found that he could not either produced any document indicating that they had better right, interest or title over the said land or that they were in fact landlord and therefore rejected the application for impleadment.

6. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2025 had filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was also rejected by order dated 23.07.2025 affirming the order of the Tehsildar. The petitioners did not challenge the said order initially while filing the writ petition but subsequently it is by means of an amendment they have sought to challenge the order dated 23.07.2025 in the present writ petition.

7. In proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against respondent No. 5, the Tehsildar by means of his order dated 23.07.2025 has that the land is recorded as Banjar land which is a gaon sabha land while the only defence taken by respondent No. 5 was that his construction is existing since 25 years. The Tehsildar was of the view that respondent No. 5 could not demonstrate any right, interest or title on the said land from which it could demonstrate that the land has vested in him in accordance with law and held him to have illegally encroached upon the said land and accordingly has passed order for eviction and imposition of penalty. Subsequently the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of eviction issued again respondent no. 5. The District Magistrate has not gone into the aspect as to whether the said appeal was maintainable at the behest of the petitioners despite the fact that neither was the proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 initiated against him and further even the application for impleadment has already been rejected on 13.05.2025 and subsequently revision against the order dated 13.05.2025 had also been rejected by Board of Revenue on 23.07.2025.

8. A perusal of the appeal preferred by petitioners indicates that there is no mention in fact the application for impleadment was rejected on 13.05.2025 and the revision against the said order has also been rejected on 23.07.2025. The District Magistrate has considered the contentions 4 WRIC No. 11274 of 2025 raised by the petitioners and found that there was no material on record which could indicate that the petitioners have any right, interest or title over the said property and has rejected the appeal by means of his order dated 01.11.2025. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, in the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.07.2025, 01.11.2025, 13.05.2025 and the revisional order dated 23.07.2025.

9. The petitioners have reiterated the arguments which was raised by them before the authorities and submitted that they have been occupying this land from a very long time and permission has also been granted to him for raising construction and also that on the previous occasion proceedings for eviction were dropped and therefore in the present circumstances, the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary and the benefit of Section 67 A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 should be given to the petitioners and respondents should be directed to settle the rights in favour of the petitioners.

10. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that on the previous occasion though the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners U/S 115 B / 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the Tehsildar /Assistant Collector had merely noticed the fact that the said land was included in the notification issued by the State Government for the benefit of the Public Works Department. As permission is required for raising any construction from 220 ft. from the centre of the road and the said land fell in the said notification and accordingly he was of the view that in such matters proceedings U/S 67 A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for eviction could not be enforced. The Tehsildar did not go into the question relating to right, interest or title over the said disputed land and therefore dropped the proceedings.

11. He further submits that in any view of the matter the proceedings U/S 115-B / 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are summary in nature and submits that there is no impediment in re-initiating the proceedings in order to protect the interest the gaon sabha land in case there is any change in situation or the previous proceedings were not decided on merits. He further submits that before any of the authorities below the petitioners have not been able to show any right, interest or title on the said land and any interference shown by the Court in the present proceedings would only lend credence to the rights of the petitioners which in fact do not exist at all and therefore prayed for 5 WRIC No. 11274 of 2025 dismissal of the writ petition.

12. Apart from the above, it has been vehemently submitted that once the impleadment application and the revision against the said order has been rejected then the petitioners were not an aggrieved persons as per Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and therefore they could not prefer an appeal before the District Magistrate against the order of Tehsildar dated 31.07.2025. He further submits that petitioners did not have any locus to prefer an appeal before the District Magistrate against the order of Tehsildar inasmuch as proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against respondent No. 5 and not against the petitioners. Even otherwise, it has been stated that in case any person even he is not a party to the proceedings who may be aggrieved by the order of the trial court can file an appeal only after seeking leave of the court and in the present circumstances where the application for impleadment had already stood rejected the petitioner had no locus to file an appeal before the District Magistrate.

13. The petitioner apart from submitting that construction belong to them could not defend their right to file an appeal before the District Magistrate nor could they effectively oppose the argument raised by learned Standing Counsel nor they had locus to file an appeal once the application for impleadment was rejected order of which was upheld by the revisional court. In the present case, the petitioners have also challenged the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting their impleadment application. In this regard, it has been noticed that the Tehsildar while rejecting their application by order dated 13.05.2025 had noticed that there was not sufficient documentary evidence available on record filed by the petitioners which could indicate their right, interest or title in the said land.

14. The permission granted by the Public Works Department did not indicate the location where the said construction could be carried out and merely because the petitioners have been granted some right to construct cannot be interpreted to mean that the petitioners had become the owner of the said land merely because they have got a right to construct. It has further been noticed that as per the permission given, the construction was a temporary construction and was liable to be removed at any time on the direction of the authorities in case the said land was required for the road widening etc. 6 WRIC No. 11274 of 2025

15. It is a fair reading of the said document can be seen as merely a license to construct or raise a construction which construction itself was liable to be removed by the orders of the competent authority. This Court further finds that there is no material available on record to indicate that the said land is not a gaon sabha land and is in fact a land under control of the Public Works Department. Accordingly, this Court does not find any legal basis for the permission granted by the Public Works Department to raise a construction and merely on strength of an order whose validity itself is doubtful, no such right or ownership can vest in the petitioners over the said land. Therefore it is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 13.05.2025 or with the order dated 13.07.2025 rejecting the revision preferred against rejection of the application for impleadment.

16. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that once their revision against the application for impleadment has been rejected then they have lost all right to call themselves as an "aggrieved person" so as to enable them to file an appeal U/S 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Accordingly, the appellate order itself is illegal and arbitrary and nonest but by merely holding that the said order is illegal and arbitrary, we hasten to add that no rights in the said land would stand vested in the petitioners and accordingly even if the order of the District Magistrate dated 01.11.2025 is set aside, the order of the Tehsidar dated 31.07.2025 would stand restored and would have full effect. This Court does not wish to discuss the validity of the order dated 31.07.2025 inasmuch as the same has been passed against respondent No. 5 who certainly has his rights to file an appeal U/S 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the competent authority. But in any view of the matter no rights vests in the petitioners on the basis of order dated 31.07.2025 which if remains unchallenged can be executed against respondent No. 5.

17. In light of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 01.11.2025 is set aside. This Court upheld the validity of the order dated 31.07.2025 and affirm the orders dated 13.05.2025 and 23.07.2025. Respondents are directed to proceed in accordance with law. December 2, 2025/Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench