Allowed

Jyoti Shankar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024WRIC/6664/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad set aside non-speak orders declaring petitioner's land as public utility under U.P. Revenue Code. Court directed restoration for fresh inspection, measurement, and hearing per precedent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter restored to Tehsildar for fresh inspection, measurement, and decision within three months after full hearing opportunity.

Jyoti Shankar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53695

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6664 of 2024 Petitioner :- Jyoti Shankar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deep Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4-Gaon Sabha.

¶6

Under challenge are the two orders passed by the Tehsildar dated 28.07.2023 passed in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The said order was assailed by filing an appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed by means of order dated 28.06.2024.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is two folds.

¶8

Firstly, it is urged that the land in question being Abadi has not been appropriately considered and it has continued to be Abadi since the time of first consolidation operation. The number of plot has changed since the consolidation proceedings and this aspect has not been considered as the house and possession of the petitioner is over the area which has been declared as Abadi.

¶9

It is further urged that the Lekhpal could not substantiate his case, inasmuch as, though, he was examined as a witness but he firmly in his cross-examination stated that he had not made any measurement in so far as Plot No. 366 is concerned, yet he tried to justify the earlier report of the Lekhpal.

¶10

It is thus urged that if the manner in which the orders have been passed which does not take note of the defence of the petitioner nor any finding has been given in this regard renders the order bad for want of reasons.

¶11

It is further urged that even in light of the decision of this Court in Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others 2022 SCC Online

¶12

All. 829 the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

¶13

Sri Hemant Pandey, learned counsel for the State-respondents while opposing the aforesaid submissions has submitted that it is the case of the petitioner that he has his house and possession over the plot No. 366 which is recorded as Khalihan and being a land of public utility, the petitioner cannot deny the aforesaid fact.

¶14

However, Sri Pandey could not dispute the fact that specific objections were raised by the petitioner regarding the manner in which the plots and their numbers have been changed over two consolidation proceedings.

¶15

He also could not dispute the fact that there are no reasons recorded in the order concerning the defence taken by the petitioner, apart from the fact that the cross-examination of the Lekhpal has been brought on record as Annexure No. 9 which clearly indicates that the said Lekhpal Mahendra Kumar Tiwari had not made any measurements.

¶16

In light of the aforesaid, the fact still remains that the order passed by the Tehsildar as well as the Collector in Appeal does not take this aspect into consideration and as such the orders being non-speaking cannot be held to be passed in valid exercise of jurisdiction.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not deem appropriate to keep the matter pending or call for the counter affidavit, hence, in light of the decision of this Court in Rishipal Singh (supra), the impugned orders are set aside and the matter shall stand restored before the Tehsildar, TehsilMilkipur, District Ayodhya where the parties shall appear on 20th August, 2024 and the Tehsildar after getting a fresh inspection and measurement and after affording full opportunity of hearing including following the dictum of this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh (supra) shall decide the matter afresh within a period of three months from the date, the parties appear before the Tehsildar concerned.

¶18

It is made clear that in case if the petitioner does not cooperate in the proceedings, the Tehsildar concerned shall be well within his rights to proceed in accordance with law.

¶19

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Costs are made easy.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Asheesh

¶21

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

Jyoti Shankar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Shankar Pandey 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

Satya Dev Pathak Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Jakir Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Mohd. Sadique Vs Union of India Deptt. of Air Customs Thru. Deepak Kumar Inspector Air Customs Officer

Mohd. Usman vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Tufail Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Ghaseete vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others