Haribans vs Shri Ajit Kumar And Another on 3 April, 2026

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:72843
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7665 of 2024   
 
   Haribans    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Shri Ajit Kumar And Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Kamla Kant Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
  
 
   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 9
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. The writ Court while disposing of Writ-C No. 6925 of 2024 on 05.04.2024 passed the following order:-

"Heard Sri Kamla Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Respondents 1, 2, 3 & 4 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings undertaken under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 and is directed against the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the Assistant Collector-Ist/Tehsildar (Judicial), Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur in Case No.2039 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. T202314360303039 of 2023) whereby the petitioner has been held to have encroached over an area 0.004 hectare of Aarazi No. 1157 area 1.214 hectare recorded as Charagah and directing the petitioner to be dispossessed and at the same time imposing penalty to the tune of Rs. 20,800/- A further prayer in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the aforesaid land in dispute has been prayed for.

It is alleged that the petitioner is Bhumidhar of Aarazi No.1157, area 2 acre 90 dismal (Old No.1285) situated in Village Amara, Post Tilora, Tehsil Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur. The father of the petitioner filed Suit No.150/221, under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. During the course of trial, the father of the petitioner died and after family settlement the petitioner was declared to be the sole owner of the land in dispute. Vide order dated 03.11.1988 the case was decreed in favour of the petitioner declaring him as Bhumidhar. On 31.03.1999 a Review Application was filed by the private respondents against the judgment dated 03.11.1988 which was rejected vide order dated 17.03.2001. After lapse of 11 years another application was filed by the Government Counsel on the same facts which was also rejected. After sometime, another application was filed and vide order dated 04.04.2001 the stay order was suspended. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ-C No.28113 of 2001 and this Court vide order dated 01.08.2001 granted interim stay order in favour of the petitioner. Vide order dated 18.07.2017 the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. The petitioner filed restoration application against the order dated 18.07.2017 which is pending.

Meanwhile, the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was initiated and vide order dated 06.01.2024 Assistant Collector-Ist/Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil-Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur, passed the order of dispossession and awarded penalty to the tune of Rs.20,800/- against the petitioner. The petitioner is in possession of Aarazi No. 1157. It is contended that the Assistant Collector-Ist/Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil-Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur, has not assigned any reasons for passing the orders impugned and the procedure as contemplated under Section 67 have 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 Assistant Collector-Ist/Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil-Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur, under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 is ex parte.

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 Co-ordiante 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 Assistant Collector-Ist/Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil-Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur, while exercising powers under Section 67 and 67 (5) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 passed under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed.

The matter is remitted to the Assistant Collector-Ist/Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil-Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur, 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."

2. When the order was not complied with, the present contempt proceedings were initiated. The Court had required the Collector as well as Sub-Divisional Magistrate to remain present in the Court and an order was passed on 20.12.2024, which is as under:

"In pursuance to the previous order passed by this Court, the Standing Counsel has filed the affidavits of the opposite parties

The affidavits do not properly explain the indiscretion committed by the revenue officers in disobeying the order passed by this Court and further, any action to be taken against the concerned revenue officers.

The Standing counsel representing the Collector, Jaunpur prays that three weeks' further time be allowed to enable the Collector to get the matter inquired into and to submit a proper affidavit.

Considering the prayer of the Standing Counsel, the case is adjourned for the day.

The Collector, Jaunpur is directed to personally inquire into the matter and, if necessary, take steps for instituting disciplinary proceedings against the erring revenue officers within three weeks from today. An affidavit showing compliance of the present order shall be filed by the Collector on the next date fixed.

List again on 20th January, 2025 on which date, the opposite parties shall be personally present in the Court."

3. On 20.01.2025, the Collector as well as Tehsildar (Judicial) appeared before the Court and filed their affidavits, wherein, it was stated that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have been suspended and departmental proceedings had been initiated against them. The applicant was granted time to file reply as the crop which was auctioned, the money which was fetched in the said auctioned proceedings was deposited into the account of the applicant.

4. Learned Standing Counsel informs that post remand the matter had concluded and the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has abated and the applicant is in possession.

5. Counsel for the applicant submits that only Rs. 11,000/- has been given for the crop while he is entitled for Rs. 48,000/-.

6. This Court finds that the writ Court had only remanded back the matter to the Assistant Collector- Ist/Tehsildar (Judicial) to decide the proceedings afresh. Post remand, the matter has been decided and proceedings under Section 67 has been abated. Once the order has been passed by the authority and the order of the writ Court stands complied with, no case for contempt is made out as this Court cannot adjudicate as to quantum of money which the applicant is entitled. This Court is a Court of execution and not a Court of adjudication.

7. In view of said fact, as the order of writ Court has been complied with, the present contempt application stands dismissed.

8. Contempt notice stands discharged.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

April 3, 2026

A. V. Singh