Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Subedar vs District Magistrate / Collector, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 23184 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 23184 ALL
Judgement Date : 24 August, 2023

Allahabad High Court
Subedar vs District Magistrate / Collector, ... on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:56604
 
Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7076 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Subedar
 
Respondent :- District Magistrate / Collector, Distt. Gonda And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjani Nath Khare,Himanshu Kumar Bachhil
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayodhya Prasad Shukla,Pankaj Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of caveator/opposite party No. 4 in the Court today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Under challenge are the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1-District Magistrate/Collector, District Gonda, whereby, the Appeal No.2190/2022 challenging the order dated 02.09.2022 filed by petitioner under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), was rejected and the order dated 02.09.2022, passed by the opposite party No.2-Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda, whereby, the opposite party No. 2 directed the revenue official(s) concerned to evict the petitioner from Gata No.478 area 0.0080 hect. and imposed fine of Rs. 17,600/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as execution expenses.

Challenging the impugned order(s), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure, which ought to have been followed by the opposite party No.2 at the time of passing of final order in the proceedings instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006, was not followed. He also stated that the report of Lekhpal concerned should be proved and unproved report can not be relied upon. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court in Writ - C No.6430 of 2023 (Shatrohan vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others).

It is further submitted that a perusal of the impugned order(s) would show that without following the procedure as indicated by this Court in the judgment, referred above, the opposite party No.2 passed the order dated 02.09.2022, which was affirmed by the impugned order dated 18.07.2023. As such, the indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.

Learned counsel appearing for side opposite could not dispute the principle settled by this Court while dealing with the proceedings instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006.

Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the opposite party No.2 and the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1.

From the impugned order dated 02.09.2022, it appears that the procedure, as indicated by this Court in the judgment referred above, was not followed while deciding the case instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 by opposite party No.2 affirmed by the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 18.07.2023, who also failed to take note of the fact that while passing the order dated 02.09.2022 the opposite party No.2 has not followed the procedure prescribed. Thus, to the view of this Court, the interference is required in the matter.

Accordingly, the order(s) dated 18.07.2023 and 02.09.2022 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the opposite party No.2-Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda to conclude the proceedings afresh, strictly in terms of law laid down by this Court in the judgment, referred above, within a period of three months as statutory provisions says that the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 ought to have been concluded within a period of 90 days.

For concluding the proceedings, the opposite party No.2 shall not provide any adjournment to the petitioner and in case, the petitioner fails to appear on the date fixed, then in that event, the authority concerned is at liberty to proceed ex-parte, however, in the light of the law laid down by this Court and conclude the proceedings within a period of three months.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 24.8.2023

Arun/-

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter