Dismissed

Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2024WRIC/28706/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J. disposed of writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The court allowed writ petitioners time to file responses questioning jurisdiction and directed the authority to decide jurisdiction first before any adverse action.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitioners permitted to submit reply to the notice within one month; authority to decide jurisdiction first; no demolition action pending proceedings.

Mohit Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:150361

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28706 of 2024 (Leading)

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohit Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aijaz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

With

¶6

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28708 of 2024 (Connected C1)

¶7

Petitioner :- Mahipal Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aijaz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8

With

¶9

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29741 of 2024 (Connected C2)

¶10

Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aijaz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶11

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶12

Writ-C No. 28706 of 2024 (Leading writ petition), Writ-C No. 28708 of 2024 (Connect C1 writ petition) and Writ-C No. 29741 of 2024 (Connected C2 writ petition).

¶13

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Keshari along with Sri A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in leading, connected C1 and connected C2 writ petitions as well as Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel for State official respondents.

¶14

In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to the fifth respondent.

¶15

Since common question of facts and law is involved in all the writ petitions, thus, they are being decided by a common order.

¶16

Learned counsel for the rival parties have made a statement at Bar that the writ petition can be decided at the fresh stage without

¶17

either issuing notice to the fifth respondent or seeking any response. With the consent of the parties writ petitions are being disposed of at the fresh stage.

¶18

The writ petitioner in the leading writ petition claims to be a tenant as the Gata No. 2668 bearing area No. 2.466 hectare situate in Mauja Kasba Sheohara Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor is stated to be in possession of the fifth respondent and the about 72 shops have been constructed and one of the shops has been rented out to the father of the writ petitioner and ultimately the writ petitioner. A civil suit is stated to have been instituted by the fifth respondent before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bijnor being OS No. 471 of 2005 in which an injunction order has been granted on 09.09.2005 with regard to maintenance of status quo and according to the writ petitioner the said interim order is in existence, however, now proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, being Case No. 8778 of 2024 Computerized Case No. T202313160308778 (Gram Sabha Vs. Mohit Kumar) is being stated to have been initiated and an order dated 19.10.2023 undated R.C. 20 has been issued.

¶19

As regards the connected C1 writ petition is concerned, the same has been filed by Mahipal Singh son of Bhoop Singh wherein the facts are the same and the notice has been issued with regard to the land 2729. Similarly, connected C2 writ petition, the same has been preferred by Dharmendra Singh son of Prithvi Singh wherein the facts are similar, the notice is with respect to the plot 2729.

¶20

Prayer in all the writ petitions is for quashing of the entire proceedings purported to be under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 while questioning the jurisdiction of the Tehsildar Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor in proceeding while initiating proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that once the civil suit itself is pending before the competent court of law and status quo order has been passed then the writ petitioners who are in the capacity of a tenant cannot be subjected to the said proceedings until and unless the civil suit gets decided and further there is no question of any such proceedings as about 72 shops have been constructed by the Ram Lila Committee and once a suit is pending then there was no occasion to proceed in this manner.

¶21

Learned Standing Counsel who appears for the State official respondents submits that till date no final order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code have been passed as only notice has been issued and it is always open for the writ petitioners to

¶22

question the jurisdiction, he further submits that though there happens to be an interim order accorded in favour of one Sri Varun Rastogi in Writ-C No. 7788 of 2024 wherein the factum of pendency of the suit was itself noticed but in the said case the Khasra in question was 2668/1 and in the present case the Khasra is 2729. Thus, there lies a distinction in this regard. The said fact has been disputed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner in all the three writ petitions while contending that there might be some error, as 72 shops have been construed and the person who has been accorded interim protection by this Court is similarly placed and is also having an adjoining shop in that regard.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

¶24

Since the issue involved herein and the relief claimed with regard to the challenge raised to the proceedings which have been initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 while issuing R.C. 20, show cause notice, it is always open for the writ petitioner to file response to the same while questioning the jurisdiction of the authority in initiating proceeding, taking factual and legal grounds as available and permissible in law and, thus, this Court does not find appropriate to delve into the issue once only notice has been issued and question of jurisdiction can be raised.

¶25

At this stage learned counsel for the writ petitioner in the leading as well as the connected writ petition submits that demolition exercise would be undertaken, however, the learned Standing Counsel submits that until and unless a final is passed under Section 67 after hearing the writ petitioner, no demolition exercise would be undertaken as it is the mere apprehension of the writ petitioner.

¶26

Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of in the following terms: (a) the writ petitioners in the leading as well as connected C1 and Connected C2 writ petitions shall submit their reply to the notice as stated to have been issued to them within a period of one month from today by 08.11.2024 taking all legal and factual grounds questioning the jurisdiction of the authority who has issued R.C. Notice; (b) on the receipt of the same, the competent authority empowered in statute shall decide the issue of jurisdiction and thereafter proceed to initiate proceeding; (c) since it is the stand the learned Standing Counsel that it is only after passing of the final order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue

¶27

Code the net consequential action either of demolition or of imposition of monetary penalty as the case may be is undertaken, thus, keeping in view of the stand taken by the State Government through the Standing Counsel this Court expects that no adverse action shall be taken till the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code by the authority at the first instance; (d) the benefit of this order is available to the writ petitioner once he files his objection by 08.11.2024.

¶28

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶29

Needless to point out that this Court has not adjudicated on the merits of the matter

¶30

It is also expected that the authority shall pass a final order within a period of two months thereafter after hearing the affected parties.

¶31

Order Date :- 13.9.2024 Rajesh

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Achchhe Lal and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Azamgarh and 9 Others

Prahalad Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy./ Prin. Secy., Deptt. Agriculture Edu. and Research, Lko. and 7 Others

Badelal and 22 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Badelal and 22 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Vijay Lakshmi vs State of Up and 4 Others

Mahipal Singh vs State of Up and 4 Others