Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Prasad Chauhan And Another vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 23 May, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:93385
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2989 of 2024
Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Chauhan And Another
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose),Mohd. Kalim
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Mohd. Kalim along with Ms. Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose), learned counsels for the petitioners and Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, representing the State respondents.
The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish/ evict the petitioners from their residential house and prayer house situate over Arazi No. 2657, area 91 Dismil out of 0.894 Hectare, situate in Mauza Kuddupur, Tehsil-Sadar, Pargana-Haweli, District Jaunpur.
From the perusal of records, it is apparent that the proceedings under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, were initiated against the petitioners with respect to Plot Nos. 2656, Area 0.113 Hectare as well as Plot No. 2614 area 0.255 hectare, and the petitioners were stated to have encroached over an area of 0.0185 Hectare of Arazi No. 2656 and over an area of 0.037 Hectare of Plot No. 2614. Two separate cases were registered under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, being Case No. 13789 of 2023 and 13790 of 2023. Both the aforesaid cases were decided against the petitioners by order dated 20.01.2024 and directions have been issued for eviction of the petitioners from the aforesaid Gatas by imposing the damages to the Tune of Rs. 1,78,525/- and Execution charges as Rs. 5/- as against the plot No. 2656 and to the tune of Rs. 3,57,050/- and Execution charges as Rs. 5/- as against the plot no. 2614.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the house of the petitioners is situate over Plot No. 2657 which lies adjacent to the plot No. 2656. The other Plot No. 2614 lies at the distance from the Plot no. 2657 and the petitioners have nothing to do with the said plot and despite this fact the proceedings under Section 67 have been initiated in respect of the said plot also. It is also contended that the proceedings in respect of Plot No. 2657 is also done without proper demarcation of the plot of the petitioners as also the Plot No. 2656. It is under these circumstances issuance of a writ of Mandamus has been sought.
In the opinion of the Court since the challenge has not been laid to the orders passed in the cases instituted against the petitioners under Section 67 the relief of mandamus restraining the respondents cannot be considered. However, the petitioners can challenge the orders passed in the aforesaid proceedings under Section 67 by filing appropriate Appeal under Section 67 (5) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006.
In the eventuality of an Appeal is filed by the petitioners, within two weeks from today, along with an application seeking condonation of delay as well as stay application, the Sub Divisional Officer shall proceed to entertain the Appeal on merits ignoring the point of limitation and also consider the stay application in the light of the directions 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, particularly to the guidelines No. (viii) enumerated therein within a period of two weeks, and thereafter proceed to decide the Appeal, in accordance with law. It is expected that the authorities shall not proceed against the petitioners and shall abide by the judgment of Rishipal Singh (Supra).
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.5.2024
Deepak/
