Allowed

Rishipal v. Additional Colleector and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2021WRIC/25285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged orders imposing eviction and penalties for alleged illegal possession. Court observed lack of demarcation and site inspection by respondent authorities, quashing impugned orders and remitting matter for procedure-based decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 23.01.2021 and 24.08.2021 set aside and remitted to Assistant Collector/Tehsildar. Direct demarcation and on-site inspection of Khasra Nos. 248 and 258-M. Proceed under Section 6

Rishipal Vs Additional Colleector and 2 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25285 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Rishipal Respondent :- Additional Colleector And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The impugned order dated 23.01.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2/ Assistant Collector First Class/ Tehsildar Rampur Maniharan, Tehsil Rampur Maniharan District Saharanpur holds the petitioner to be in illegal possession of khasra No. 258-M which is recorded as manure pit in the revenue records. Further the court below has directed the eviction of the petitioner from the 258-M and penalties have also been imposed upon the petitioner.

¶6

The appellate authority by the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 has agreed with the findings of the initial authority and has affirmed its judgment.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ram Chandra Kushwaha contends that the petitioner has not encroached upon khasra No. 258-M. His house has been erected on khasra No. 248. The authorities are threatening to demolish the house of the petitioner erected on khasra No. 248 without carrying out any demarcation or on site inspection of the said plot. This is a consistent case of the petitioner before the authority below.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel from the records could not dispute the fact that the authorities below have not conducted any demarcation or on site inspection of the khasra No. 248-A.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

The case of the petitioner is that he has erected his house on khasra No. 248. The authorities below neglected to get the plot demarcated and failed to direct on site inspection of the aforesaid plot. This in turn has created confusion and the house of the petitioner which is on khasra No. 248 is under threat of demolition. The impugned judgment dated 23.01.2021 suffers from non application of mind and failure to exercise jurisdiction as per law. The appellate order dated 24.08.2021 does not redeem the said illegality.

¶11

The orders dated 23.01.2021 and the 24.08.2021 are liable to be set aside and are set aside.

¶12

In the interest of justice the matter is remitted to respondent No. 2/ Assistant Collector First Class/ Tehsildar Rampur Maniharan, Tehsil Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur with the following directions:

¶13

(1) The respondent No. 2/ Assistant Collector First Class/ Tehsildar Rampur Maniharan, Tehsil Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur shall cause demarcation and on site inspection of khasra No. 248 0.008 hectare and khasra No. 258M 0.008 hectare as per law and in presence of the petitioner.

¶14

(2) The petitioner shall be provided with the aforesaid inspection reports and shall also be granted opportunity to raise objection to the said reports.

¶15

(3) The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent No. 2.

¶16

(4) The petitioner undertakes that he shall not seek

¶17

unnecessary adjournments in the court below.

¶18

(5) The respondent No.2 shall conclude the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the website of High Court, Allahabad. The authority/official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

(6) The respondent No. 2 shall give short dates in the proceedings.

¶20

(7) The respondent No. 2, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶21

(8) In case any adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the respondent No. 2 shall impose costs not below Rs.500/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.

¶22

(9) If necessary, the respondent No. 2 shall proceed on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of three months to decide the case is strictly adhered to.

¶23

It is clarified that this Court has not entered into merits of the controversy. It is for the respondent No. 2 to decide the issue upon independent application of mind consistent with the above directions and in accordance with law.

¶24

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶25

Order Date:- 4.10.2021 Nadeem

Rishipal v. Additional Colleector and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishipal v. Additional Colleector and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Surya Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhure Lal @ Bhure Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jayayuddin Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Saheb Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat and Another