Dismissed

Tilak Dhari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2023WRIC/12950/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged three revenue orders declaring him an encroacher and ordering dispossession. The High Court found the statutory procedure was followed and held no perversity existed in the findings that the boundary wall encroached on respondent land.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed upholding the impugned revenue orders and the petitioner is to be dispossessed.

Tilak Dhari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12950 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Tilak Dhari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Jeet Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Suresh Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, learned counsel representing the Staterespondents, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha and Sri Suresh Singh, who has appeared on behalf of the caveator Mahendra Prasad Yadav, who has not been arrayed as respondent although his reference is found in the order impugned passed by the appellate court.

¶6

Sri Suresh Singh has been heard in view of the Chapter XXII Rule 5-A of the High Court Rules.

¶7

This petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 15.06.2022 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class/ Tehsildar, Sadar, Jaunpur, 06.09.2022 passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Jaunpur and 06.03.2023 passed by Assistant Collector First Class/ Tehsildar, Sadar, Jaunpur.

¶8

By the first order dated 15.06.2022, the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been decided against the petitioner and by the second order dated 06.09.2022, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Collector. By the third order dated 06.03.2023, the petitioner again has been found to be an encroacher and it has been passed in compliance of the previous order.

¶9

The case of the petitioner is that he is not an encroacher over the land covered by Arazi No.1222 and he has confined his possession over the land covered by Gata No.1081. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that proper spot inspection according to law was never conducted and therefore the orders impugned are contrary to the provisions of Rules 66 and 67 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. Further case of the petitioner is that he has secured his land by constructing a boundary wall which is not an encroachment.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent side have argued that the orders impugned are based upon the report submitted by the Lekhpal, spot inspection as well as statement

¶11

of Lekhpal. They have also argued that the appellate court has recorded detailed findings on merits of the case and has found that the boundary wall has been constructed by the petitioner over the land covered by Gata No.1222. They also submit that the Collector while upholding the order of Tehsildar issued a direction that spot inspection be again conducted and in case the petitioner is found to be an encroacher, he be dispossessed and damages be recovered from him. Learned counsel for the respondents have produced an inspection report dated 31.01.2023 in compliance of the order of the Collector. They have also produced the document dated 04.03.2023 whereby a team of seven officials was constituted to implement the orders.

¶12

On merits, I find that the procedure prescribed under Rules 66 and 67 of the Rules, 2016 has been followed. The case of the petitioner is clear to the effect that he has secured his land by constructing boundary wall. It is not the case of the petitioner that the boundary wall exists inside the holdings of the petitioner. To the contrary, there is sufficient documentary evidence on record to hold that the boundary wall was constructed over the land covered by Arazi No.1222.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, argued that the area of the petitioner is less on the spot and for correction of map, certain proceedings are pending before the competent court.

¶14

Be that as it may, pendency of such proceedings would not affect the validity of the orders impugned which have been passed under Section 67 of the Code, 2006. However, in case the petitioner's map is corrected in the proper proceedings, necessary consequences would follow. In so far as the findings recorded in the impugned order are concerned, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the same considering the material placed before this Court.

¶15

The writ petition fails and is dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 25.4.2023 AKShukla/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tilak Dhari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilak Dhari v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Smt. Anju Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kailash Nath Mishra Vs Jay Prakash Mishra and 42 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hemant Kumar Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Suchit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kanta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others