Allahabad High Court
Mumtaj Ali vs District Magistrate / Collector, ... on 13 August, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47242
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7540 of 2025
Petitioner :- Mumtaj Ali
Respondent :- District Magistrate / Collector, Shrawasti And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prasad Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arvind Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.
1. Heard Sri R. P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 while notice on behalf of respondent No.s 4 and 5 has been accepted by Sri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 11.4.2025 passed by Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Ikauna, District Shravasti who has passed order for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed property and also imposed penalty upon the petitioner for illegally occupying the gaon sabha land. The petitioner has further challenged order dated 13.6.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Shravasti under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code where the appeal preferred by the petitioner agaisnt the order dated 11.4.2025 has been dismissed.He has further assailed the order dated 23.6.2025 wherein the respondents have given notice for demolition.
3. It has been submitted that a notice in form No.20 under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code was issued to the petitioner. He appeared in the proceedings before the Tehsildar, Shravasti and object to the said notice. It was alleged that the petitioner is illegally occupying the land situated at gata No.2695 area measuring 0.055 hectare situated at Ikauna, Tehsil Ikauna, District Shravasti which is recorded as Naveen Parti. In his objection the petitioner had stated that the house built on the said land was ancestral house and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the notice.
4. It was alleged that 314 square meters land of gata No.2695 has been encroached by the petitioner and in this regard a public interest petition was filed before this Court in the case of Basant Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in PIL petition No.3082/2021 where this Court had directed that proceedings be initiated under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code. The petitioner has also defended his occupation on the ground that a civil suit has been filed by him in the civil court of competent jurisdiction and prayed that till decision of the civil suit no adverse action be taken against him.
5. The Tehsildar, considering the response of the petitioner had rejected the same and passed orders for eviction and imposed penalty for an amount of Rs.32,400/ for illegally occupying the gaon sabha land which has been recorded as Naveen Parti. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal under Section 67 (5) before District Magistrate, Shravasti who has also rejected the appeal and did not find any infirmity in the order passed by Tehsildar, Srivastava dated 11.4.2025. He has further submitted that the defence taken by the petitioner that he is living in his ancestral property is incorrect in as much as in the name of father of petitioner there exists a separate two storied house and, therefore, it is not possible that the disputed property is ancestral property of the petitioner and accordingly rejected the appeal.
6. The petitioner has reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. He submtis that in various documents issued by the State including the electricity bill, ration card and family register the present address has been recorded and accordingly submits that the petitioner is living in the said premises for a long period of time and consequently the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code need not be initiated against the petitioner.
7. Considering the submissions of the petitioner, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders requiring interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. However, this Court finds that the petitioner had made a claim under Section 67A of U.P. Revenue Code before the Tehsildar indicating that the disputed house has been constructed and the petitioner is living prior to the cut off date i.e. 29th November, 2012 but this aspect of the matter has not been considered either by the Tehsildar or by the appellate court and this Court finds that this aspect of the matter has been decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Govind Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ petition C No.20493 of 2021 which is as follows:-
"14. The authority/ court having jurisdiction to decide the proceedings taken out under Section 67 of the Code or Section 67(A) of the Code is the same. When the defence of Section 67(A) of the Code is taken in proceedings of Section 67 of the Code, the same issues will be directly and substantially in issue in both the proceedings. Usually in such matters pleadings, defence, and evidence of the parties are same in both the proceedings. In case proceedings under Section 67 and 67(A) of the Code are conducted separately and in isolation to one another, it would lead to multiplicity of litigation and inconsistent judgments. There will also be an avoidable delay in decision of the controversy and may even result in miscarriage of justice.
15. The courts in proceedings under Section 67 of the Code are under obligation of law to decide the eligibility of the noticee for protection under Section 67(A) of the Code. In case defence under Section 67(A) of the Code is taken by the noticee, the said proceedings shall be registered separately. But both cases will be consolidated and heard and decided together.
16. This procedure would faithfully implement the legislative intent and also serve the interest of justice.
17. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the failure of the learned courts below to enquire into the validity of the defence of the petitioner under Section 67(A) of the Code has resulted into a miscarriage of justice."
9. In light of the above, without interfering with the impugned order, the matter is remitted back to opposite party No.3 i.e. Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector, Tehsil - Ikauna, District Shravasti in the case under Section 67 A.
10. Considering the fact that all the material has been filed, let him take decision with expedition, say within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him, in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
11. The petitioner will be at liberty to file all the documents in support of his contentions under Section 67 A within next three weeks.
12. It is made clear that till decision is taken by the Tehsildar with regard to application under Section 67A of the petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken against him in pursuance of the impugned order dated 11.4.2025 passed by Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Ikauna, District Shravasti, order dated 13.6.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Shravasti under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code and the order dated 23.6.2025 passed by Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Ikauna, Shrawasti.
13. With aforesaid observations and directions the petition stands disposed of.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 13.8.2025
RKM.
