Ram Sewak vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4613 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Sewak vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 February, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15561
 
Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3112 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Sewak
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siya Ram Sahu
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Achal Singh,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Siya Ram Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated in respect to the plot no.786 situated at Village-Tindwara, Tahsil & District- Banda. Tahsildar vide order dated 27.2.2023 passed the order for ejectment in respect to the plot no.786 against the petitioner as well as imposed damages of Rs.2,43,000/- against the petitioner. Against the order of Tahsildar dated 27.2.2023, appeal under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Collector / respondent no.2 which was dismissed vide order dated 23.8.2024, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.8.2024 passed by respondent no.2 i.e. District Magistrate/ Collector, Banda in Appeal No.458 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.D202407110000458) (Ram Sewak Vs. Gaon Sabha and Another), under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and order dated 27.2.2023 passed by respondent no.3 i.e. Tahsildar, Tahsil and District- Banda in Case No.4196 of 2017, (Computerized Case No.T2017071142014196) (Gaon Sabha vs. Ram Sewak), under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

ii. to issue any other writ or direction to the respondent authority concerned not to dispossess to the petitioner, nor realize the damages of Rs.2,43,000/- imposed upon him."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the petitioner in arbitrary and ex-parte manner. He further submitted that the damages has been imposed in arbitrary manner without considering the provisions contained under Rule 67 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. He further submitted that in view of the ground taken in appeal with regard to the possession over the plot no.786, the authorities have not conducted the survey / demarcation of the plot in question, as such, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court reported in 2023 (1) ADJ 154, (Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others) in support of his argument. He further placed the revenue entry of the plot in question in order to demonstrate that the petitioner is not in illegal possession of plot no.786.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that the order for ejectment and damages has been rightly passed by the Tahsildar in view of the entry of the plot no.786. They further submitted that the authorities have conducted the demarcation of the plot in question, as such, no interference is required in the matter. They further submitted that the provisions contained under Rule 36 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 has been followed while imposing the damages against the petitioner, as such, no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the Tahsildar has passed the order for ejectment and damages against the petitioner in respect to the plot no.786 area 0.015 hectare vide order dated 27.2.2023 and the order of Tahsildar has been maintained in appeal by the Collector vide order dated 23.8.2024.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Rule 67 (2) & 67 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 will be relevant, which are as under:

"Rule 67. Further inquiry by Assistant Collector (Section 67)-

(2) The Assistant Collector shall thereafter proceed to take action under section 67(2) and for that purpose issue a notice to the person concerned in R.C. Form-20 to show cause as to why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation not exceeding the amount specified in the notice be not recovered from him and why he should not be evicted from such land.

(4) The amount of damages sought to be recoveredand the expenses of execution of the order shall be specified in such notice, which shall be determined in the following manner:-

(a) In the case of damage or misappropriation, the amount of damages shall be assessed at the prevailing market rate.

(b) In the case of unauthorized occupation of any land, the amount of damages shall be the amount equal to the five percent of the market value of the land calculated at the circle rate fixed by the Collector for each year of unauthorized occupation.

(c) The expenses of execution of the order shall be assessed on the basis of one day?s pay and allowances payable to the staff deputed."

8. Perusal of the order passed by the Tahsildar as well as the order passed by the Collector demonstrate that the objection of the petitioner has not been considered in proper manner before passing the order of ejectment and damages against the petitioner. The objection filed on behalf of the petitioner before Tahsildar as well as appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Collector demonstrate that the petitioner has denied his possession over the plot in question but without considering the objection in proper manner, the order for ejectment and damages has been passed by the Tahsildar as well as order of Tahsildar has been maintained in appeal.

9. This Court in Rishipal Singh (supra) has considered the scope of the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as appellate proceeding under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Paragraph No.74 of the judgment is relevant for perusal, which is as under:

"74. Thus, in my view, following guidelines be adopted as procedure to be applied to proceedings under Sections 67,67A and 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code. It is all aimed at ensuring transparency in the procedure, judiciousness in approach by the authorities and to thwart every complaint made with ulterior and oblique motive to dislodge a long settled possession and causing of unnecessary harassment to an innocent villager:

(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."

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Rishipal Singh (supra), the impugned order dated 23.8.2024 passed by respondent no.2/ Collector and order dated 27.2.2023 passed by respondent no.3/ Tahsildar (Judicial), Tahsil and District- Banda are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

11. The writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted back before respondent no.3/ Tahsildar (Judicial), Tahsil and District- Banda to register the proceeding on its original number and decide the same afresh on merit considering the objection of the petitioner as well as the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Rishipal Singh (supra) expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondent no.3.

Order Date :- 4.2.2025

Rameez