Disposed

Mahima and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2024WRIC/2839/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the demolition of a brick wall on Gaon Sabha land without following statutory procedure. The High Court noted that Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 applies to 'any property' without distinguishing between temporary and permanent structures. The Court directed the Lekhpal to file an affidavit and impleaded him as a party to scrutinize the compliance with legal

What did the court decide?

Lekhpal directed to file affidavit in 10 days; Lekhpal impleaded as opposite party no. 8; case listed for next date.

Mahima and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2839 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Mahima And Another

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neelam Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

1. Sri Arvind Singh, Lekhpal and Sri Gayatri Prasad Tripathi, Nayab Tahsildar are present.

¶7

2. Sri Arvind Singh says that noticee- Urmila Pal is motherin-law of the petitioner no. 1 and mother of the petitioner no. 2, who was given notice, however, she refused to accept it as is mentioned in the said document annexed as Annexure- CA-1 dated 4.1.2024. He also says that a 'paimaish' was also got done prior to the said notice and prior to demolition to ascertain whether the wall illegally constructed on Gaon Sabha Land.

¶8

3. On being asked as to under which provisions of law, Sri Arvind Singh -Lekhpal gave the said notice and proceeded to demolish the construction which from the photographs appears to be a brick wall, which was cemented, though the complete plaster was not there on the wall. He informed that if the construction is temporary, then it can be demolished without taking recourse to the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, however, if it is not temporary, is permanent, then proceedings under Section 67 have to be initiated.

¶9

4. We have perused the provisions of Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The said provision speaks of 'any property' nothing more. We do not find any distinction drawn

¶10

between a temporary construction or a permanent construction. This is apart from the fact that it is very difficult for us to believe, at least this stage that the wall appearing in the photograph, was a temporary construction. The temporary construction would be a thatched roof erected on some iron rod or wooden stick etc. but a cemented brick wall at least, prima facie, cannot be treated as a temporary structure. This is ofcourse apart from the fact that Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 does not contain any such distinction of temporary or permanent property. In our understanding, the wall such as the one involved in this case would also be a property and therefore, the procedure would be under Section 67 as prescribed by the Legislature.

¶11

5. Recently, Hon'ble The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of such demolitions without following the procedure prescribed in law and came down heavily upon the concerned authorities. As per Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Lekhpal concerned should have informed the Tehsildar, who would have then drawn the proceedings under Section 67 and appropriate order would have been passed. The said procedure has not been followed. It is high-time, accountability was fixed in matters of deviation from the law as has been done by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 vide its judgment dated 13.11.2024.

¶12

6. Let Lekhpal- Sri Arvind Singh file his own affidavit, positively, within 10 days.

¶13

7. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed to the aforesaid affidavit within three days thereafter.

¶14

8. Let the petitioner implead Sri Arvind Singh-Lekhpal, AreaDhevai, Village- Khaja, Pargana- Asal, Tehsil and DistrictAmethi as opposite party no. 8 during the course of the day.

¶15

9. Lekhpal- Sri Arvind Singh shall appear again on the next date i.e. 17.12.2024.

¶16

10. List this case on 17.12.2024 within top 10 cases of the day.

¶17

11. Learned Standing Counsel, who already possesses a copy of the writ petition, shall provide a copy to Sri Arvind Singh so that he may file his affidavit before the next date.

¶18

12. If Sri Arvind Singh wants to engage a lawyer, he may do so or he may be represented through learned Standing Counsel, as the case may be.

¶19

[Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 27.11.2024 A nu j Sing h

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahima and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahima and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. and 6 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

Devendra Singh @ Sudhir vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue ) Lko. and 3 Others

Haushila Prasad Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Medical Health U.P. Lko. and Others

Chhotelal and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Rambali vs Collector , Hardoi and Others

Ram Ladaite vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and Others

Shiv Nath vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others