Allowed

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024/6869/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition setting aside ex-parte orders passed by the Tehsildar and District Magistrate under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, citing delay and lack of participation by the petitioner, restoring the matter on deposit of costs.

What did the court decide?

Ex-parte orders dated 28.12.2022 and 05.02.2024 set aside; petition restored on deposit of Rs. 25,000 cost.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54944

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6869 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deshraj Singh,Ram Lal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel . Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 5- Gaon Sabha.

¶7

Under challenge are the two orders passed by the respondent no. 4 in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby the proceedings were decided ex-parte against the petitioner.

¶8

Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which also met the same fate by means of order dated 05.02.2024.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property in question belonged to the father of the petitioner and the name of Siyaram, the father of the petitioner is duly recorded in the revenue records relating to Plot No. 1201.

¶10

It is further urged that the allegations against the petitioner is that he has illegally encroached the land of plot No. 1208 and 1209.

¶11

The further submission is that two plots are adjacent to the plots of the petitioner and without there being a proper demarcation, it could not be considered as to whether the petitioner had made any encroachment thereon.

¶12

It is further submitted that the proceedings before the respondent no. 4 was ex-parte and even when the appeal was filed the Appellate Court has taken a pedantic view and has not considered the sufficient cause as indicated by the petitioner in the memo of appeal, as a result, the appeal has been dismissed causing grave injustice to the petitioner.

¶13

The aforesaid submissions have been opposed by learned Standing Counsel as well as the counsel for the Gaon Sabha that despite ample opportunity being granted to the petitioner, yet, he did not cautiously participated in the proceedings which led to an ex-parte judgment. The same has been noticed by the Appellate Authority and has rejected the appeal and this essentially being the question of fact, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be slow in interfering.

¶14

Since a short question is involved, accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has decided to proceed with the matter on merit without calling for the counter affidavit.

¶15

As far as the issue whether the petitioner has encroached upon the plot is concerned, the same has to be seen in context with the averment made by the petitioner.

¶16

The petitioner has brought on record the Khatauni relating to Plot No. 1201 which is in the name of father of the petitioner i.e. Siyaram. It is prima facie evident of the fact that the petitioner has his rights over plot No. 1201.

¶17

There is no dispute to the fact that the Plot No. 1208 and 1209 over which the alleged encroachment has been made are adjacent to the plot in question of the petitioner. As far as the aforesaid fact regarding measurement, spot inspections made by the Lekhpal, there is no clear averment except that he had filed his report and appeared in the witness box but since the petitioner has not participated, accordingly, he was not subjected to any cross-examination.

¶18

Even the Appellate Court was swayed only with the aspect regarding the attitude of the petitioner where he had not participated in the proceedings but nevertheless what this Court finds that the issue requires consideration as the sufficient cause should have been liberally construed looking into the demographic and social background as prevalent in the villages.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and that the matter was decided ex-parte against the petitioner, accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice can be met by setting aside the ex-parte impugned orders passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil and District Barabanki and the orders passed by the District Magistrate Barabanki dated 05.02.2024 and 28.12.2022 on a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before within a period of ten days the Court of the District Magistrate, Barabanki who

¶20

shall utilize it for the legal aid services. Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the case shall stand re-stored on the board of the Tehsildar concerned.

¶21

The parties shall appear before the Tehsildar on 22nd August, 2024 and the petitioner shall also file his response/objections within a week thereafter. An endevour would be made by the respondent no. 4 to afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties and decide the matter preferrably within a period of six weeks.

¶22

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the contention of the parties on merits and the impugned orders are set aside only on account of delay.

¶23

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 Asheesh

¶25

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

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Dhirendra Singh Vs Additional Commissioner Judicial Iind, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Another

Madhurima Yadav Vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Another

Rohtas Presidential Towers Residents Welfare Association Thru President Sudhir Thakur and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Finance Lko and Ors.

Piyari @ Ram Piyari vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Ram Chandra Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others