Allahabad High Court
Krishnanand vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 January, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:8960 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43961 of 2023 Petitioner :- Krishnanand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Dayal Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Pankaj Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Shiv Dayal Tiwari, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2 and 3.
Perused the record.
Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by respondent 3 Tehsildar, Sadar, District Basti in Case No. 7411 of 2022 (Land Management Committee Vs. Krishnanand) under Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code 2006 as well as the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by respondent 2 Collector/District Magistrate, Basti in Appeal No. 1229 of 2022 (Krishnanand Vs. Land Management Committee and others), under Section 67 (5) U.P. Revenue Code 2006.
Record shows that the Halka Lekhpal submitted a report dated 16.7.2022 (R.C. Form 19) alleging therein that Survey Plot No. 41 and area 0.008 Hectare is recorded as banjar in the revenue record. The petitioner Krishnanand was alleged to be in illegal possession and occupation over aforesaid land. After the receipt of the report (R.C. Form 19), proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revene Code 2006 came to be registered against petitioner as Case No. 7411 of 2022 (Land Management Committee Vs. Krishnanand). Notice is alleged to have been issued against the petitioner, but in spite of service of notice, he did not appear before respondent 3 Tehsildar Sadar, District Basti before whom aforementioned case was pending. Consequently, an ex-parte order dated 13.6.2023 was passed against petitioner, by respondent 3 Tehsildar Sadar, District Basti.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.6.2022 , petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. District Magistrate, District Basti in terms of Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006. The same came to be registered as Appeal No. 1229 of 2023 (Krishnanand Vs. Land Management Committee and others). Though number of grounds were raised in support of the appeal, but none of them found favour with the Appellate Authority. Resultantly, the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent 2 Collector/District Magistrate, Basti dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 19.10.2023. Thus, feeling aggrieved by above orders dated 13.6.2023 and 19.10.2023 detailed above, petitioner has now approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against petitioner on the basis of the report dated 16.7.2022 submitted by Halka Lekhpal. However, the Halka Lekhpal himself did not appear before respondent 3 i.e. Tehsildar Sadar, District Basti to prove the report so submitted by him. As such, no trial took place in respect of the issue involved in the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is then contended that Survey Plot No 41 is a Minjumla plot comprising of various sub plots. Therefore, no order of eviction could have been passed without specific measurement and demarcation of Survey Plot No. 41 M area 0.008 Hectare, which is recorded as banjar. It is then contended that respondent 3 has passed the impugned order dated 13.6.2023 in hot haste without diligently exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. Respondent 3 has further imposed damages against petitioner, but without undertaking any exercise in terms of Rules 67 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, Rules 2016. As such, the amount of damages awarded by respondent 3 is not only illegal, arbitrary but also patently illegal inasmuch as no attempt has been made by respondent 3 to calculate the amount of damages with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellate Authority i.e. respondent 2 Collector/District Magistrate, Basti has simply passed an order of affirmance without adverting to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the Appellate Authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him.
On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that interest of justice shall be served in case, the orders impugned in present writ petition are quashed and matter is remanded to the Court of respondent 3 Tehsildar, Sadar, District Basti to decide the matter afresh after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel representing the Gaon Sabha have opposed the present writ petition. They submit that since the petitioner has no right, title and interest over Survey Plot No 41 M which is recorded as banjar in revenue record, therefore no illegality has been committed by the authorities in passing the order of eviction and damages against the petitioner. However, they could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned Senior counsel for petitioner with reference to the record at this stage.
Having heard the learned Senior counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2 and 3, the learned counsel representing Gaon Sabha and upon perusal of record this Court finds that though the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against petitioner on the basis of the report dated 16.7.2022 (R.C. Form 19) submitted by the Halka Lekhpal, but the Halka Lekhpal did not appear before respondent 3 Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Basti to prove the report. As such, no trial took place. The Court further finds that the land in dispute i.e. Survey Plot No. 41 M is a Minjumla plot, but no attempt has been made by respondent 3 to get the measurement and demarcation of specific area which is recorded as banjar in the revenue record. In the absence of specific measurement and demarcation, exercise undertaken the conclusion drawn by respondent 3 that petitioner is in illegal possession and occupation over Gaon Sabha which is recorded as banjar is patently erroneous. Furthermore, the amount of damages imposed by respondent 3 against petitioner is also not only irrational and arbitrary but in complete derogation of the provisions of Rule 67 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016.
In view of above, the writ petition succeeds and is liable to be allowed.
It is, accordingly, allowed.
The order dated 13.06.2023 passed by respondent 3 Tehsildar, Sadar, District Basti in Case No. 7411 of 2022 (Land Management Committee Vs. Krishnanand) under Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and the order dated 19.10.2023 also passed by respondent 2 Collector/District Magistrate, Basti in Appeal No. 1229 of 2022 (Krishnanand Vs. Land Management Committee and others), under Section 67 (5) U.P. Revenue Code 2006 are, hereby, quashed. Matter shall stand remanded to respondent 3 Tehsildar, Sadar, District Basti for adjudication afresh, who shall decide the same after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above.
Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 18.1.2024/HSM