Dismissed

Madarasa Zamiatul Fallah Bilariaganj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2023WRIC/23908/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging notice proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code regarding disputed land occupancy. The Court held that the Tahsildar was empowered to adjudicate the factual objections filed by the petitioner, rendering judicial intervention premature at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and respondent Tahsildar was directed to decide the petitioner's objections expeditiously.

Madarasa Zamiatul Fallah Bilariaganj Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:197722

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23908 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Madarasa Zamiatul Fallah Bilariaganj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kashi Nath Shukla,Sneh Ranjan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Kashi Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent - Gram Sabha.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that Circle Lekhpal/ Revenue Inspector submitted a report dated 16.7.2021 before Tahsildar that plot no.365M area 0.650 hectare, plot no.369M area 0.164 hectare, plot no.370M, area 0.036 hectare, plot no.381M area 0.755 hectare and plot no.384 area 0.012 hectare are recorded as Kabristan Naveen Parti, Navin Parti Banjar and Pokhari but the same have been wrongly occupied by the petitioner by constructing Madarsa building canteen shop and premises for last ten years, as such, proceeding under Section 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 be initiated on the basis of aforementioned report, Tahsildar has ordered to issue notice as well as registered the case as Case No.T202115060704644 under Section 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the petitioner. Upon service of notice, petitioner filed his detailed objection dated 31.3.2021 taking ground of jurisdiction as well as other grounds. This petition has been filed for quashing the order/notice dated 16.7.2021 passed/issued by Tahsildar in Case No.279/T202115060704644 as well as the entire proceeding initiated by the Tahsildar under Section 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 on the basis of illegal report submitted by the lekhpal / revenue inspector dated 16.7.2021 with regard to disputed plot

¶8

situated within the limits of Nagar Panchayat Bilarianganj, Tahsil- Sagri, District- Azamgarh.

¶9

Stamp reporter has reported laches of 634 days in filing the instant writ petition, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit dated 30.7.2023.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner in illegal manner on the basis of invalid report submitted by the revenue authorities. He further placed the provisions contained under Rules 66 & 67 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 in order to demonstrate that provisions has not been followed while issuing notice to the petitioner, as such, the entire proceeding is misconceived and liable to be dropped. He next submitted that the Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat is empowered by the provisions of U.P. Municipality Act to initiate any proceedings for eviction of the land situated within the limits of Nagar Panchayat but in the instant matter the proceeding has been initiated on the basis of report of the Tahsildar / Revenue Inspector, which is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed his objection dated 31.3.2023 against the aforementioned notice stating that the notice issued against the petitioner be withdrawn as the proceeding is without jurisdiction. He next submitted that the petitioner is an institution and institution is running for last more than 100 years. He also submitted that office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Azamgarh has issued notice dated 17.7.2023 to deposit the 1% of the tax in favour of the Uttar Pradesh Bhawan Evam Anya Karmakar Kalyan Board and in pursuance of the notice, petitioner institution has deposited a sum of Rs.42,000,00/- through cheque on 9.10.2023. He placed the copy of the notice dated 17.7.2023 and proof of deposit, which have been annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 & SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. On the basis of the aforementioned fact, learned counsel for the

¶11

petitioner submitted that the impugned proceeding be quashed. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in 2010 (13) SCC 255 (Kanwar Natwar Singh vs. Director of Enforcement and Another) & 2015 (8) SCC 519 (M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Others) in order to demonstrate that the proceeding is without jurisdiction and liable to be dropped.

¶12

On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that in view of the entry of the plot in dispute proceeding has been rightly initiated. He further submitted that the writ petition cannot be entertained against the issuance of notice with respect to the proceeding under Section 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He next submitted that the petitioner has already filed his objection before the Tahsildar, as such, the same will be considered in accordance with law. He further submitted that the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that proceeding for exchange in respect to the plot no.369 has been initiated which is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, as such, no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶14

There is no dispute about the fact that the notice has been issued against the petitioner under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has already filed his objection dated 31.3.2023 taking all the grounds before respondent no.2 / Tahsildar, which is pending before Tahsildar.

¶15

In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the objection dated 31.3.2023 filed by the petitioner before respondent no.2 / Tahsildar shall be relevant, which is as under:

¶16

" नययययलयतहससलदयरसगडसजजलयआजमगढ वयदसस० 279/T202115060704644 अनतगरतधयरय 67(1) उ०प०रयजसवससहहतय 2006 ममजयहवलररययगसजपरगनयवतहससलसगडस

¶17

जजलयआजमगढ

¶18

ररपपररबनयमपबनधकमदरसयजयममततलफलयह

¶19

" नकलआपजतमदरसयजयममततलफलयहहबलररययगसजदयरयपबनधकमप०तयहहरमदनसहदनयसक 31.03.2023 कक छयययपहतससलगहह। आपजतऊपरररपपररलमखपयलहदनयसकवदफयतमजहलहह -

¶20

1. यहहकररपपररलमखपयलजखलयफकययदयकयन असजलयतकमहहइसजलएहनरसतहपनमयपगयहह। 2. यहहकमदरसयजयममततलफलयहएकरजजसरररस स थयहह।जपलपकहहतजनकलययणकयकययरकरतसहह।तथयअधययन अधययपनकयउचचसतरपरकययरकरतसहह। … सयकरतयकममहयनहमशनसमजतरसहह। 3. यहहकमदरसयउपरपकजमसनदयरसउनमनलनकमपनवरसमचलतसहह।तथयचकबनदसपनवरआबयदहहतथयरजजसरटमशनसन 1964 ममहहआहह।जपमयनयतयपयपहह। 4. यहहकआरयजसनमबर 365 कहबसतयनकमखयतमककजमसनहह।मतससलमकहबसतयनदपभयगममबरयहपतयहह।जहयहएक तरफदफनयनमकयकययरहपतयहह।वहसदनसरसतरफजनयजमककनमयजपढसजयतसहह। 5. यहहकआ०नस० 365 कयकतलरकबय 0.962 हह०हह।जजससमसरयआ०नस० 366 सकनलकमनयमसमहह।तथय 367 व 349 सकनलकपदयनममहमलसअरयजसहह। 6. यहहककहबसतयनकककममरसवसकनलमदरसयककएकहसकममरसहह।तथयकममरससभससदसययनमएकरययहपकर आ०नस० 365/0.650 हम०जहयहजनयजमककनमयजपढसजयतसहहकपएकबयउनरटससमघमरकरतथयसकनलककभनहमआ०नस० 366 व 367 व 349 ककभनहमवकहबसतयनकयशमषरकबय 0.315 हम०कपदफनकरनमकमसथयनकपदनसरसबयउसरटसघमरनम एवससकनलकमबदलमसकनलभवनबनयनम 265 ममहवदयलयभवनकयपसतयवपयसहकयय।तदनतसयरएररययसमनकशयपयस हपकरभवनकईवषरसमबनकरपठनपयठनकयकययरहपरहयहह।लमखपयलदमहयकयकथनजखलयफइसकमबमबनहनययदहह। 7. यहहकआ०नस० 369 नवसनपरतसककभनहमहह।जजसपरपहलमकयशतकयरयकयनयमथय।जजनहपनमअपनसभनहमसकनल कपदयनहदययथय।परनततचकबनदसममहकसपकयरसमततहरउकआरयजसनमबरककनवसनपरतसममदजरकरहदयय।मयलनम नहसहह।परनततउकआरयजसनमबरकयसकनलकयहनमयरणहह।जजसकयनकशयभसनगरपसचययतदयरयपयसहह।हकससभसतरफ कयन कयउलसघननहसहकययगययहह।हनमयरणचकबनदसकमपनवरकयहह।बयवजनदइसकमजबउकआशयककजयनकयरसहहई। तपउकभनहमकमबदलमममसकनलनमअपनसभनहमदमकरबदलहनकरनमकयपसतयवकममरसदयरयपयररतकरकमहनयमयनतसयरदयवय अनतगरत 101 उ०प०रय०सस०दयजखलकररहसहह।जपररपपररहमततलमखपयलकमपयसभमजदसगयसहह। 101 कयउपरपक वयदजमरमतजबसजहह।

¶21

8. यहहकआ०नस० 370/0.21 हम०आबयदसकमखयतमककभनहमहह।तथय 0.003 हम०नवसनपरतसकमखयतमककभनहमहह। लमखपयलदयरयहबनयससमयसकनहकयम 0.036 हम०परबमदखलसककररपपररककगयसहह।जपहनरसतहपनमयपगयहह। 9. यहहकआ०नस० 381 कयबनदपबसतसकम० 0.914 हम०हहजजसमममयत 0.111 हम०सकनलकमनयमभनहमधरसहह।शमष रकबयममकमपरबशकलबयगहह।हकनतनभन - हचतममबरयजयतकययमनहसहह।कथनजखलयफइसकमगलतवहनरयधयरहह। सकनलअपनमनयमसमदजररकबय 0.111 हम०कमपरहसहनमयरणकरकयहबजहह। 10. यहहकआ०नस० 384/0.012 हम०पपखरसकमखयतमककभनहमहह।जपममकमपरममजनदहह।तथयहवदयलयपररषदव बयउनरटससमबयहरउसपरनतपहकससपकयरकयकबजयहहऔरनहसकबजयदखलहह। 11. यहहकमदरसयजयममततलफलयहपहलमसकनलकमनयमसमजयनयजयतयहहइसजलएआ०न०सकनलकमनयमसमदजरहह। वयदममउसकयससशपधनहकययगययतथयउससनयमसमरजजसरटमशनकरयययगयय।

¶22

12. यहहकममकमपरआरयजसययतकककपईहनशयनदमहसनहसककगयस।बसलकसरसरसतमरपरररपपररकरदसगयसहह। 13. यहहकइसमदरसमममलगभग 4500 बचचमपढतमहह।जजसममसमलगभग 800 आवयससयहयसरलममरहतमहह। 14. यहहकआरयजसययतनमजयईनगरपसचययतहबलररययगसजककससमयकमअनतगरतभनहमहहजजसपरबमदखलसकरयनमकय अजधकयरनगरपसचययतअजधकयररययकयहह।लमहयजयररपपररलमखपयलकयअजधकयरहवहहनवगलतकमतयजधकयरममहकयय गययहह।इसजलएहनरसतहपनमयपगयहह।

¶23

15. यहहकररपपररलमखपयलहरतरहसमहनरसतहपनमयपगयहह। अततशसमयनसमपयथरनयहहहकउपरपकतथययकपदहषगतरखतमहहएररपपररलमखपयलहवरदहनरसतकरनपहरसआ०सस० 49 वयपसजलययजययतयहकनयययहप। पयथर

¶24

मदरसयजयममततलफलयह हबलररययगसज , आजमगढ। दयरयपबनधक - मप०तयहहरमदनस "

¶25

In view of the objection dated 31.3.2023 taken by the petitioner against the notice dated 16.7.2021 as quoted above, it will be appropriate that the same should be considered by respondent no.2 / Tahsildar rather by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of writ of mandamus.

¶26

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the matter, the writ petition is dismissed at this

¶27

stage of the proceeding. However, respondent no.2 is directed to consider the objection dated 31.3.2023 of the petitioner against the notice dated 16.7.2021 and decide the entire proceeding in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously.

¶28

Order Date :- 12.10.2023 Rameez

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Madarasa Zamiatul Fallah Bilariaganj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madarasa Zamiatul Fallah Bilariaganj 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

Vasir @ Vajir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Murti Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Jang Bahadur Patel Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd Naushey Vs State of U.P.

Omkar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

M/S Dkd Ikjot United Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others