Allahabad High Court
Satya Ram vs Collector Distt. Ambedkar Nagar And 2 ... on 24 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36248
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6085 of 2025
Petitioner :- Satya Ram
Respondent :- Collector Distt. Ambedkar Nagar And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-opposite parties no.1 and 2 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3.
2. The present petition has been filed with the following reliefs:
?(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 27.1.2025 and 30.5.2025 contained in Annexure Nos.2 and 1 respectively to this writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to evict the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned orders dated 27.1.2025 and 30.5.2025, contained in Annexure Nos.2 and 1 respectively to this writ petition.?
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed without following the procedure as envisaged under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further submits that law in this regard has been settled by this Court in the cases of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, 2022 SCC OnLine All 829, Writ-C No.6430 of 2023, Shatrohan Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others, decided on 03.08.2023 and Smt. Laxmi Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 (163) RD 40. Relevant portion of the judgement passed in the case of Shatrohan (supra) is quoted below:-
? A challenge has been made to the impugned order(s) on the ground that the procedure, which ought to have been followed by the opposite party No.4 at the time of passing of final order in the proceedings instituted under Section 67(1) of the Code of 2006, was not followed. In continuation, it is stated that the procedure, which should be followed, has been indicated by this Court in the judgment dated 02.12.2022 passed in the bunch of petitions, leading of which, is Writ C No.6658 of 2022 (Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 829. A reference has been made to para 74 of the report of Rishipal Singh (Supra), which reads 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."
He stated that this Court in the judgment passed in Writ - C No.9500 of 2022 (Sharda Industries Thru. Partner Mayank vs. The Additional District Collector, District Unnao And 2 Others); also observed that the report of Lekhpal should be proved and unproved report can not be relied upon.
It is also stated 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.4 passed the order dated 29.11.2022, which was affirmed by the impugned order dated 19.01.2023. As such, the interference of this Court is required in the matter.?
4. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 could not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition and has submitted that matter may be remitted back for fresh decision.
5. Writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders dated 27.01.2025 and 30.05.2025, contained in Anexure Nos.2 and 1 respectively to the writ petition are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Assistant Collector, First Class/Tehsildar, Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar (opposite party no.2) with a direction to take afresh decision within a period of three months from today after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The petitioner will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. All pleas are open for the parties.
.
(Brij Raj Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 24.6.2025
Rao/-
