Writ petition challenging a report under U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and an appellate order regarding land encroachment and eviction was dismissed as misconceived. The eviction was executed and a separate application for record correction was pending.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:60541
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7625 of 2023
Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Pandey,Arpit Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Bali Singh, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Govind Kumar Chaurasiya,Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
This petition has been filed challenging the report dated 24.06.2020 in compliance of order dated 20.03.2020 in case No.2140 of 2015 (Gram Sabha versus Ram Kumar) under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya in appeal No.2856 of 2022(Chandra Prakash versus Ram Kumar and others) and the report dated 29.03.2023 submitted by the Tehslidar for compliance of order dated 20.03.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.5(the then Gram Pradhan) had made encroachment on Gata No.652/0.0130 hectare, Village Bedapur, Pargana Paschim Rath, Tehsil Bikapur, District Ayodhya therefore the proceedings for eviction were instituted and the order dated 18.02.2016 was passed for eviction of the respondent no.5. The report was submitted on 24.06.2020 and the order of eviction has been executed. However, since a wrong report was submitted, therefore the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate Ayodhya, which has been disposed of in pursuance of the report dated 29.03.2023 submitted by the Tehsildar Bikapur by means of the order dated 22.05.2023 without considering that in the objection filed against the appeal, the respondent no.5 has admitted that he is in possession of Gata No.651 which is recorded as abadi, whereas old number is 379 which is recorded as rasta in CH Form 11 and CH Form 23. Therefore the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, submits that the order of eviction has been executed and the encroachment of opposite party no.5 from gata no. 652 has been removed. So far as Gata no.651 is concerned, he submits that
till date no proceedings have been instituted therefore the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the reports and the appellate order are not correct is not tenable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has moved an application under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 for correction of record in respect of Gata No.651 old No.379 before the sub divisional magistrate just before filing of this petition which has been referred in paragraph 20 of this petition. Even otherwise that is a separate cause and on that basis, the impugned report order cannot be challenged.
In view of above, since the order of eviction in regard to gata no. 652 has already been executed, therefore, it cannot be said that reports have wrongly been submitted and the appeal has wrongly been decided unless any order is passed in regard to Gata No.651. As admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has already moved an application for correction of the records, which he may pursue. However, this petition is misconceived and lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 20.9.2023 Akanksha
Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the report under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and the District Magistrate's appellate order regarding eviction and land records.
Whether the dismissal of a petition challenging incorrect reports submitted under U.P. Revenue Code 2006 is maintained in light of rectification applications pending.
Chandra Prakash
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow
Rajnish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
