Allahabad High Court
Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:74789
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 10510 of 2025
Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Singh And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ganesh Kumar Gupta, Rajesh Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri Ganesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the dispute in the present writ petition is related to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner with regard to the land situated at Gata No. 384 at Village Gazipur Bangar, Tehsil Fatehpur, district Unnao.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the said land has been in possession of his grand-father, namely, Mansa Ram for a very long time who had also constructed a pakka construction on the said land. He has further submitted that notice U/S 122B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Rule 115 D of the said Rules was sent to Mansa Ram and consequently the proceedings were conducted by the Tehsildar Safipur and by means of order dated 31.03.1995, notices were discharged. Subsequently proceedings were initiated again by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Bangarmau, District Unnao with regard to the same land situated at Gata No. 284 of the said village.
4. In the said proceedings, the notices were never served to the petitioner due to which he could not appear and the Tehsildar passed orders for eviction and imposition of penalty against the petitioner. Petitioner on coming to know of the order dated 17.01.2023 had filed an appeal before the District magistrate, Unnao who has partially allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner by means of order dated 30.08.2024. While allowing the said appeal, the District Magistrate has permitted the petitioner to retain possession of the Pakka house, which had been constructed by the petitioner's ancestor, granting him the benefit of Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. However, with regard to the remaining land, which was the subject matter of the proceedings against the petitioner, he was declared to be in illegal possession, and the direction for eviction and imposition of a penalty, which were imposed by the Tehsildar, have been sustained.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order of the District Magistrate, submitted that he had filed an appeal against the order of the Collector stating that no opportunity of hearing was granted to him. The second ground raised by the petitioner is that once the proceedings have already been initiated and dropped under Section 122B of the UP Z.A. & L.R. Act, then proceedings on the same land could not have been initiated by the respondent. Accordingly, on these two grounds, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and deserves to be set aside. He has further submitted that the proceedings had been held without following proper procedure and such proceedings cannot be sustained.
6. Lastly, he has submitted that the amount of the penalty imposed is excessive.
7. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. He has submitted that as per the impugned order, notices were adequately served upon the petitioner, and the report of service is available on record. When the notice was sought to be effected on the petitioner, it has been reported that no one is present in the house, and the notices were held to have been sufficiently served. The Tehsildar considered the revenue report from which it was evident that the petitioner is illegally occupying gata No. 284 of the said village which has been recorded as Banjar which is a gaon sabha property and there being no representation on behalf of the petitioner or any objection indicating that he is a regular tenure holder of the said property. It was held that the petitioner had no right, title, or interest and was declared to be in illegal occupation and passed orders for eviction and imposition of penalty.
8. It was before the District Magistrate at the stage of consideration of his appeal that the petitioner apart from assailing the order passed by the Tehsildar, also staked his claim for rights to be adjudicated under Section 67A of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, stating that the ancestors of the petitioner have been in occupation of the disputed land prior to the cut-off date as provided therein and, therefore, rights should be settled in favour of the petitioner under section 67A of U.P. Revenue Court 2006.
9. The District Magistrate duly considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal. With regard to the previous proceedings under Section 122B of of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it was found that there was clear finding in favour of the petitioner with regard to the existence of the permanent structure on the disputed land, which, at that time, was more than 40 years old and accordingly, even while passing the order dated 31/03/1995, in light of the existing law, the said Pakka structure was settled in favour of the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, even the District Magistrate, Unnao while passing the impugned order has taken into account of the fact that an area of 0.0300 hectare, on which the packa structure is existing has been settled in favour of the petitioner but the remaining land, which is agricultural land and other land occupied by the petitioner, he has held to be in illegal occupation and passed orders for eviction and imposition of a penalty. Accordingly. learned and standing counsel has submitted that 0.030 hectare is more than the prescribed limit of land which can be settled in favour of any individual and in fact the petitioner has been granted more land to which he is legally entitled in exercise of power U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Court 2006 taking equitable and sympathetic consideration of the entire case. It is in the said circumstances it has been submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the writ petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be rejected.
11. I have heard rival contentions and submissions of the parties and perused the record.
12. Considering the first ground raised by the petitioner with regard to the previous proceedings initiated against the grandfather of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and the father-in-law of petitioner no. 3, this court finds that the said notice was only with regard to the house constructed on Gata No. 284 /0-2-0 land. Accordingly, it was only with regard to two biswa of land that the adjudication was made by the Tehsildar, Safipur on the previous occasion. The said notice was discharged when, on the said land, the predecessor in the interest of the petitioner was found in occupation. In the present case, as per the notice issued to the petitioner, it is alleged that he is in occupation of 0.0910 hectare of land, which is far exceeding the land on which the predecessor in the interest of the petitioner was put to notice on the previous occasion culminating in the order dated 31/3/1995.
13. It seems that after discharge of the previous notice, more land has been occupied by the petitioner, which has necessitated the initiation of fresh proceedings under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code. This Court does not find any material on record, either in the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the District Magistrate or before this Court, by which the petitioner can claim any right, interest, or title in the said land. Neither the petitioner nor the predecessors in interest are the recorded tenure holders, and there is no material on record which can indicate any grant, lease, or patta was executed, either in favour of the petitioner or the predecessor in the interest of the petitioner. Clearly, the occupation of the petitioner is de hors the provisions of law and is not supported by any revenue records or material before any of the authorities below.
14. It is in the backdrop the aforesaid facts this Court finds that a beneficial piece of legislation was existing in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act in light of the provisions of Section 123 and subsequently under Section 67A of U.P. Revenue Court 2006 The District Magistrate has also found that the packa construction raised by the petitioner on the disputed land is existing from prior to the cut-off date and has correctly settled the said house in favour of the petitioner.
15. The only question that remains in the present case is with regard to the area over and above the pakka construction to which orders for eviction and imposition of a penalty has been passed. From the material on record, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned orders, inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to indicate any semblance of right, title or interest over the said land. This court finds that due procedure has been followed, inasmuch as the reports of the revenue officers are existing on record, and even the District Magistrate examined the land through video conferencing in the presence of all the revenue authorities and the concerned parties.
16. Accordingly, this Court finds that the appellate court has considered all the grounds raised by the petitioner, and this Court has also examined the record and considered the arguments raised by the petitioner. It is in the aforesaid circumstances this Court finds there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, inasmuch as the land which has been settled in favour of the petitioner on which the pakka construction is existing is more than the prescribed limit of land, which ordinarily could have been settled in favour of any person to whom benefit of Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 could be granted. Accordingly, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that it is in the aforesaid circumstances he may be allowed to retain the remaining portion of the gaon sabha land.
17. With regard to the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, this Court finds that the Tehsildar has imposed a penalty for an amount of rupees 1,03,600/- while the District Magistrate has settled 0.0300 hectare in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the said amount should have been recalculated at the appellate stage, and to that extent, this Court finds that the grounds raised by the petitioner are only with regard to the penalty are justified. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid facts, this Court reduces the amount of the penalty and the petitioner shall be now entitled to pay rupees Rs. 50,000/- as penalty.
18. Subject to the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the District Magistrate, accordingly, the writ petition is partially allowed.
(Alok Mathur,J.) November 19, 2025 Ravi/