Dismissed

Raja Ram Tewari v. Collector Faizabad and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024WRIC/1004045/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging eviction orders under Section 122(b) U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The court, finding no title for the petitioner, granted liberty to apply under Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, directing authorities to decide within two months and protecting current possession.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to move appropriate application under Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within four weeks; possession protected pending decision.

Raja Ram Tewari Vs Collector Faizabad and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3320

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1004045 of 2003

¶4

Petitioner :- Raja Ram Tewari Respondent :- Collector Faizabad And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- M.A. Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Khan,Mohan Singh,R.N. Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri L.M. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

The controversy raised in the present writ petition is with regard to plot of land which is in possession of the petitioner which is described as Plot No. 65 area 0.020 hectares (renumbered as plot no. 122, area 0.012 hectares) and Plot No. 123, area 0.008 hectares, situated at Village & Post - Sherkhanpur, Pargana - Paschim Rath, Tehsil - Milkipur, District - Faizabad.

¶8

It seems that the petitioner was unauthorisedly occupying the said land and in the meanwhile, notice under Section 122(b) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was issued to him. On issuance of notice the petitioner had filed his objections before the Assistant Collector – I, Milkipur, Faizabad stating that he has been in possession of the said land. Before the Prescribed Authority the petitioner could not demonstrate that either the said land was allotted to him or could produce any document to prove ownership and hence the Prescribed Authority accordingly held that said land is "Abadi" and the petitioner is unauthorised occupant of the said land and allowed the application under Section 122 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act passing orders of eviction of petitioner.

¶9

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of Assistant Collector dated 08.08.2003, preferred an revision before the Collector, Faizabad. The Collector duly considered the grounds raised by the petitioner. Before the Collector the petitioner submitted that consolidation proceedings have not concluded inasmuch as the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation has been assailed in a writ petition before the High Court and consequently till such proceeding are finalized, notice under Section 122(b) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be issued to him. Considering the said objections the Collector, Faizabad

¶10

held that no documents have been filed before him with regard to proceedings pending before the High Court and accordingly it cannot be said that any matter is pending consideration before the High Court and also that there was no dispute that the said land was "Abadi" land on which the petitioner was unauthorized occupant and accordingly dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner.

¶11

The petitioner while assailing both the aforesaid orders approached this Court by stating that the notice issued to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and consequently entire proceedings under Section 122(b) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act are illegal and arbitrary and deserve to be set aside.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that there was no order of allotment in his favour and that he only made an application for such allotment.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that there is no material on record which can justify possession and occupation of the petitioner on the disputed property, the said land is "Abadi" land and same has already been held so by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and even writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed for want of prosecution and has not been restored. He further submits that neither before the Prescribed Authority nor before the Revisional Authority the petitioner could establish his title over the said land and accordingly there is no doubt that the petitioner has illegally encorached upon the "abadi" land. With regard to notice it is submitted that all the material information required for entertaining a notice are contained in the notice, the description of the property, area, boundaries are clearly indicated in the notice. Merely because of signatures of the Prescribed Authority are not discernible, is not a ground for setting aside the notice.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

From the undisputed facts of the case it is clear that the petitioner is in occupation of plot no. 65, area 0.020 hectares (re-numbered as plot no. 122, area 0.012 hectares), and plot no. 123, area 0.008 hectares, situated at Village & Post - Sherkhanpur, Pargana - Paschim Rath, Tehsil - Milkipur, District - Faizabad. Proceedings under Section 122(b) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated and objection were rejected holding that the petitioner had illegally encroached upon "Abadi" land, by means of order dated 08.08.2003. The Revisional Authority had also rejected the contention of the petitioner and affirmed the order of Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 01.10.2003. There is no doubt that there is no legal basis for possession of the land by the petitioner and

¶16

also that the said land is recorded as "Abadi" land in the revenue records.

¶17

Grounds have been raised by the petitioner pertaining to legality and validity of notice, though this issue was never raised or considered by either of the two authorities below, but in the interest of justice, this Court has gone through the notice dated 04.01.2004, which has been issued to the petitioner at the stage of proceedings under Section 122(b) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. It is clear that all the material particulars pertaining to illegal occupation have been very specifically spelt out and name of petitioner, his address, name of illegal occupant of land, description of land, its boundaries, location and even a map has been appended in the notice itself, accordingly, no hypertechnical view can be taken to the notice which serves its purpose. Under Section 122(b) no such objection was raised before either of the authorities below and this Court does not find any ground for interfering in the impugned orders merely on the basis of notice.

¶18

Even before this Court the petitioner has not been able to juastify his occupation over the 'abadi' land and this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out by the petitioner calling for interference of this Court.

¶19

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the stage of admission of present writ petition, status quo order was passed in favour of the petitioner and on the strength of the same the petitioner is still in occupation of the said land. During pendency of proceedings before this Court the Gaon Sabha has passed a resolution dated 18.02.2016, stating that they have no objection if the said land is allotted in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

Undoubtedly, till date despite the said resolution no order of allotment has been passed in favour of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, State of U.P. has enacted the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 where Section 67(A) has been inserted to protect the person who have been in occupation of the land which is not reserved for any public purpose and on which house exists. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner fulfills all the conditions for being given benefit of Section 67A of the Act, 1960 and prays that he may be given liberty to establish his case before the competent authority under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶21

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in case petitioner is given liberty to establish his case before the competent authority for being given benefit of Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶22

Accordingly, liberty is given to the petitioner to move

¶23

appropriate application under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the competent authority within next four weeks. In case any such application is moved by the petitioner before the competent authority, he shall proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, say within a period of two months thereafter in accordance with law.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he will cooperate in the proceedings before the competent authority and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments. It is provided that till decision is taken by the competent authority while considering the application under Section 67-A of the Code, 2006, the petitioner's possession shall not be disturbed in respect of Plot No. 122 (re-numbered as plot no. 122, area 0.012 hectares), area 0.012 hectares, situated at Village & Post - Sherkhanpur, Pargana - Paschim Rath, Tehsil - Milkipur, District - Faizabad.

¶25

With aforesaid observations the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶26

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 A. Verma

¶27

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raja Ram Tewari v. Collector Faizabad and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Ram Tewari v. Collector Faizabad and 3 Ors.

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

Ram Swarup and Another Vs Additional District Judge Court NO.6 Lakhimpur Kheri and Ors.

Smt. Bitti Devi Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Food and Civil SUPPL.and4OR

Sudha Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj and 3 Ors.

Ram Chander Verma Vs Civil Judge J.D. Sadar Faizabad and Others

Syed Shahid Akbar Vs Prescribed Authority, Regulated Area / Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Sadar, Sultanpur and 4 Others

Prabhagiya Nideshak Van Vs Van.Evam Sangik Vanki Karmachari