Dismissed

Vinod Kumar Shukla and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2024/1130/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition challenged a show-cause notice under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 regarding illegal construction on Gaon Sabha land. The Court held the notice valid as the land remains under Gaon Sabha control and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits; the illegal occupation of Gaon Sabha land must be addressed by the Prescribed Authority.

Vinod Kumar Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27783

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1130 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Shukla And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sadhu Saran Shukla,Prachi Shukla,Shashank Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Sriniwas Bajpai

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Shashank Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dev Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 and 2, Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey on behalf of respondent No.3 and Sri Sriniwas Bajpai for respondent No.5.

¶8

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the notice issued on 21.10.2013 under Section 67 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by Tehsildar Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi as well as the proceedings of case No.T202310330488887 (Gram Sabha Beniganj Vs. Vinod Shukla) pending before Tehsiildar, Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi.

¶9

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Ram Chandra, Ram Pal and Santosh Kumar had sold their plot to one Smt. Santosha Mishra through registered sale deed on 1.4.1998 and the same property was purchased by petitioner No.2 by means of registered sale deed on 8.4.2015. The said notice has been received in the name of petitioner No.1 under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code in relation to plot No.2797 which has been assailed in the present writ petition.

¶10

It has been submitted that the said notice dated 21.10.2023 has been issued asking him to show cause as to why the illegal and unauthorized constructions on plot No.2797 area 0.0090 hectare may not be removed and why penalty may not be imposed for occupying the gaon sabha land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the said notice is illegal and arbitrary in as much as the said land has been vested in Nagar Panchayat, Beniganj as per the notification issued under Section 8 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and, hence, the notice is without jurisdiction.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised this plea solely on the account of the fact that he is paying water tax and house tax to the Nagar Panchayat and receipt has been annexed but neither any notification has been annexed along with the

¶12

petition nor any bill which has been given to the petitioner for the house tax or water tax or any assessment with regard to house or water tax and merely on the basis of the said receipt it is sought to be contended that the said area falls within the limits of Nagar Panchayat and consequently not being gaon sabha land proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code could not have been initiated.

¶13

Sri Dev Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the State, on the basis of written instructions has informed this Court that till date the said land on which the alleged encroachment is existing is within the control of the gaon sabha and on the basis of the latest khatauni it has been submitted that the land still is part of gaon sabha, Beniganj.

¶14

Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides as under:-

¶15

(1) Where any property entrusted or deemed to be entrusted under the provisions of this Code to a Gram Panchayat or other local authority is damaged or misappropriated, or where any Gram Panchayat or other authority is entitled to take possession of any land under the provisions of this Code and such land is occupied otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions, the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or other authority or the Lekhpal concerned, as the case may be, shall inform the Assistant Collector concerned in the manner prescribed.

¶16

(2) Where from the information received under sub-section (1) or otherwise, the Assistant Collector is satisfied that any property referred to in sub-section (1) has been damaged or misappropriated, or any person is in occupation of any land referred to in that sub-section in contravention of the provisions of this Code, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation not exceeding the amount specified in the notice be not recovered from him and why he should not be evicted from such land. (3) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under subsection (2) fails to show cause within the time specified in the notice or within such extended time as the Assistant Collector may allow in this behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be insufficient, the Assistant Collector may direct that such person shall be evicted from the land, and may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary, and may direct that the amount of compensation for damage or misappropriation of the property or for wrongful occupation, as the case may be, be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue."

¶17

From a perusal of aforesaid Section it is clear that it not merely a property of the gaon sabha but the word 'local authority' has been used and accordingly even if the property vests in Nagar panchayat still proceedings under Section 67 of the Code can be proceeded against the said person, who is in illegal occupation of the said land which is in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. Apart from the above, a perusal of the sale deed as annexed by the petitioner indicates that there is no gata number stated in the said sale deed and it cannot be said that the sale deed relates to the same plot which is in question as per the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority on 21.10.2023 The petitioner has only questioned the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority who issued this notice .

¶18

This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the same. Firstly that the said land is still a gaon sabha land as per the instructions received by learned counsel for the State and also it is evidence from perusal of the latest khatauni produced before this Court indicating that the said land is pertaining to gram sabha, Beniganj, Even if the said land has been taken over by Nagar Panchayat still there would not be infirmity in the notice and no person can be allowed or permitted to illegally occupy the gaon sabha land for his personal use. Lastly, even the sale deed does not indicate as to whether the same relates to disputed property. All these aspects would be duly considered by the Prescribed Authority under the proceedings of Section 67.

¶19

In light of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the notice issued under Section 67. The writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed .

¶20

It is made clear that the Prescribed Authority shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court in the present petition while deciding the case under Section 67 of the Code.

¶21

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 4.4.2024 RKM.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Kumar Shukla and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Shukla and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishnanand and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Anil Bansal Vs U.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Thru.Its Chairman Lko and 2 Others

Amita Verma Thru. Her Power of Attorney Holder Brijendra Singh Vs U.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,Lko. Thru. Chairman and 2 Others

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow Thru. Secy. vs Mahesh Ram

Karam Jeet Singh vs Civil Judge (S.D.) Pratapgarh and Another

Swami Dayal Tiwari and 2 Others vs Honble Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division) Room No. 15, Distt. Sultanpur and 2 Others