Allahabad High Court
Akram vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 February, 2020
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4562 of 2020 Petitioner :- Akram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kant Singh,Ramesh Pundir,Rekha Pundir Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Kant Singh, the counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Vikas Rastogi, Advocate representing the caveator as well as the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 3. The counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be finally decided on the basis of facts stated and the documents annexed with the writ petition itself and no counter affidavit is required. In view of the aforesaid, the Court has proceeded to decide the case on merits.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the Additional Collector (Judicial), District Saharanpur in an appeal registered as Case No. 03747 of 2019 under Section 67(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Code, 2006').
The facts of the case are that case under Section 67(1) of the Code, 2006 was registered against the petitioner on a report submitted by the Lekhpal on 29.6.2017 informing that the petitioner had encroached over Plot No. 722 which is a chak-marg and recorded as such in the revenue records. On receipt of notice, the petitioner submitted his objections in which he stated that the Lekhpal had not inspected the plot and the report had been submitted by the Lekhpal without making any measurements and that the map submitted by the Lekhpal did not correctly reflect the position of the plot and the constructions of the petitioner. In his objections, the petitioner denied that he was in occupation of any Gaon Sabha plot. Subsequently, the Tehsildar himself inspected the spot and on the basis of his spot inspection, held that the petitioner was not in possession over Gaon Sabha plot and, therefore, through order dated 1.6.2018, withdrew the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 67 of the Code, 2006. Against the order dated 1.6.2018 passed by the Tehsildar, the Gaon Sabha filed an appeal under Section 67(5) of the Code, 2006 which was registered as Case No. 03747 of 2019 and the said appeal has been allowed by the Additional Collector (Judicial), District Saharanpur vide his order dated 18.12.2019. Through order dated 18.12.2019, the Additional Collector has directed that the petitioner be evicted from the Gaon Sabha plot and damages be recovered from him as specified in the report of the Lekhpal.
A reading of the order dated 18.12.2019 shows that in the aforesaid order, the Additional Collector has set-aside the order passed by the Tehsildar on the ground that the spot inspection made by the Tehsildar was vague and did not clearly depict the situation of different plots and the occupation of the petitioner. In his order dated 18.12.2019, the Additional Collector has also affirmed the report of the Lekhpal dated 29.6.2017 wherein the Lekhpal had reported about the alleged encroachment by the petitioner over the Gaon Sabha plot. It is evident from the records annexed with the writ petition and especially from the order dated 1.6.2018 passed by the Tehsildar that in his objections, the petitioner had denied that the Lekhpal had inspected or measured the plot and had also contested the correctness of the report of the Lekhpal. Consequently, the Tehsildar himself inspected the plot. It is true that the report of the Tehsildar does not clearly depict the situation of the different plots as well as the possession of the petitioner but in such a case, the Additional Collector should have called for a fresh report which, as the appellate court, he was empowered to call. No reasons have been given by the Additional Collector for accepting the report of the Lekhpal, the contents of which were denied by the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the Additional Collector is clearly contrary to law and is, hereby, set-aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector (Judicial), District Saharanpur to pass fresh orders in Case No. 03747 of 2019 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him after giving the interested parties an opportunity of hearing.
It is clarified that the Additional Collector, as the appellate court, may also call for a fresh report regarding the situation and location of the plot of the Gaon Sabha as well as the possession of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 7.2.2020 Satyam