Rajendra @ Rajinder vs State Of Up And 4 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 15225 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajendra @ Rajinder vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 2 May, 2024

Author: Ashutosh Srivastava

Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:91493
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7129 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajendra @ Rajinder
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Singh,Prem Prakash
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
 

Heard Shri Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents and Shri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel representing the Respondent No. 5.

The writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Respondent No.4, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Mirzapur in Case No. 2948 of 2023 (Revenue Lekhpal Vs. Rajinder) under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Respondent No.3, District Magistrate, Mirzapur in Case No. 422 of 2023 (Rajendra @ Rajinder Vs. State of U.P.) filed under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, in Case No. 457 of 2023 (Rajendra @ Rajinder Vs. State of U.P.) filed under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

It is the case of the petitioner that Arazi No. 177 area 0.2280 hectare, Arazi No. 178 area 0.2400 hectare and Arazi No. 179 area 0.1260 are situated at Village Raipur, Tappa-96, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur and are recorded as 'bheeta' in the revenue record. The petitioner constructed a house over Arazi No. 179 and is residing with his family. On a complaint being made, the Lekhpal concerned submitted his report that the petitioner has illegally encroached over Arazi No. 179 area 0.018 hectare out of 0.1260 hectare. On the report of Lekhpal,proceeding under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated and a case being Case No. 367 of 2023 was registered against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has allegedly encroached over Arazi No. 179 are 0.018 hectare, which is recorded as 'bheeta' in the revenue records. Pursuant to the notices issued the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations in the notice and stating that petitioner and his family members are residing over the said plot before abolition of zamindari and in such circumstances the proceedings under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code is totally unwarranted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tehsildar merely relying upon the report of the Lekhpal and without considering the objections/ reply of the petitioner passed the order dated 06.04.2023. The petitioner took this specific ground and other grounds in Appeal under Section 67 (5) of the Code but the Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal No. 422 of 2023 on 08.06.2023 without adverting to the grounds taken in the Appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Revision before the Respondent No.2, which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2023. It is contended that the procedure contemplated under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code has not been followed the procedure contemplated under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, has not been followed by the Authorities. It is thus submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the writ petition allowed.

Learned counsel for the State respondents and Gaon Sabha have supported the order impugned and submit that the authorities have recorded the findings of facts which call for no interference in writ proceedings and no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Admittedly the order passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil -Sadar, District Mirzapur, under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 is ex-parte. The petitioner took specific grounds in the Appeal under Section 67 (5) and also in the Revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Prima facie, the Court finds that the grounds as raised in the Appeal and in the Revision have not been adverted to by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority while dealing with the Appeal and the Revision.

The manner and the method in which spot inspection is to be conducted, reports prepared and the procedure to be adopted by the Revenue Authorities in exercise of powers conferred under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code 2006 came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ C No. 6658 of 2022) decided on 2.12.2022, reported in 2023 (1) ADJ 154. The Coordinate Bench after considering all aspects of the matter in para 74 of the judgment culled out the guidelines to be adopted as procedure to be applied to proceedings under Section 67, 67A and 26 of the UP Revenue Code for ensuring transparency in the procedure, judiciousness in approach and to thwart every complaint made with ulterior and oblique motive to dislodge a long settled possession and causing unnecessary harassment to an innocent villager. The guidelines enumerated are as under:

(i) In case of complaint made on RC From 19, the official making it shall ensure that proper survey is done in the light of observations made in this judgment; the land, occupation of which has stood identified to be unauthorized is in exact measurement and so also shown in the survey map prepared on scale, as per the Land Revenue Survey Regulations, 1978; the exact assessment of damages on the basis of circle rate with details of calculation made on that basis.

(ii) In a case of suo motu action, before issuing RC Form 20, the authority will ensure that proper report upon RC Form 19 is submitted as per para (i) above on parameters of subrule 1 Rule 67.

(iii) RC Form 20 must be accompanied by a copy of report and spot survey submitted alongwith RC Form 19 to the person against whom proceedings have been instituted, or even otherwise submitted in case of suo motu action vide para (ii) above.

(iv) Upon reply being filed to the notice, if authority finds that spot survey/explanation report is not satisfactory, it may order for a fresh spot report to be prepared in presence of the party aggrieved.

(v) In the event, objection includes a plea of statutory protection/ benefit under Section 67-A, the authority should invite the objection from the Gaon Sabha, and will decide the same alongwith the matter under Section 67, without requiring aggrieved party to move separate application under Section 67-A.

(vi) If the report is admitted on record, may be in case no objection is filed, the authority must ensure presence of the person preparing the report before it, to prove the report by his statement, with a right to aggrieved party to cross question him.

(vii) The authority must endeavour to decide the case within time framed provided under the relevant Act and the Rules and should desist from granting adjournment to the parties in a routine manner.

(viii) In case of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, preferred/ filed within the time prescribed alongwith interim relief application, the interim relief application as far as possible should be decided within two weeks' time with prior notice to other side and where plea of settlement under Section 67-A has been taken before Assistant Collector-1st Class, and damages to the tune of 25 % at-least of the total damages are paid and an affidavit of undertaking is filed for not raising any further construction upon the land in question, the authorities including civil administration should avoid taking any coercive measure pursuant to the order appealed against until the disposal of interim relief application. The Appellate authority may also consider granting interim relief on the very first day of filing of appeal with stay application if above conditions are fulfilled by the appellant.

(ix) The appellate authority should as far as possible decide the appeal within a period of two months of its presentation.

Prima facie, the Court is of the opinion that the guidelines enumerated have not been followed by the Respondent No.4, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Mirzapur in Case No. 2948 of 2023 (Revenue Lekhpal Vs. Rajinder) under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and by the Respondent No.3, District Magistrate, Mirzapur in Case No. 422 of 2023 (Rajendra @ Rajinder Vs. State of U.P.) filed under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and by the Respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, in Case No. 457 of 2023 (Rajendra @ Rajinder Vs. State of U.P.) filed under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, while exercising powers under Sections 67, 67(5) and 210 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 passed under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, the order dated 08.06.2023 passed under Section 67(5) of the Code and the order dated 18.10.2023 passed under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed.

The matter is remitted to the Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Mirzapur, to decide the same afresh in the light of the observations and guidelines made in the decision of this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh, (Supra), expeditiously.

Order Date :- 2.5.2024

pks