Ram Pragat Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Ayodhya and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024WRIC/7581/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside three impugned orders regarding eviction for encroachment under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The orders were quashed due to lack of proper inspection report and failure to examine the Lekhpal, constituting vice of non-consideration. The matter was remanded for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 26.04.2024, 24.07.2023 and 29.10.2022 set aside; file restored to respondent No.4 for fresh decision within three months.

Ram Pragat Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60722

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7581 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Pragat Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector Ayodhya And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghaw Ram Upadhyay 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 the respondents No.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice for the respondent No.5.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby it dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner, as a result, the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 has been affirmed which in turn affirms the order dated 29.10.2022 passed by the respondent No.4.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid three orders have been passed without considering the specific contentions raised by the petitioner.

¶9

It is urged that the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated by the respondent No.4 against the petitioner alleging that he had made an encroachment over the Gaon Sabha land on Gata No.1175 which was recorded as Khalihan.

¶10

The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had advanced his objections before the respondent No.4 specifically stating that the land in question belongs to the petitioner that being part of his abadi over which he has made his 'Sariya' where his domesticated animals were tied.

¶11

It is further urged that a specific objection was also taken that Lekhpal dit not make any inspection and merely on the basis of a sham report which had no basis, yet it was made the base of passing of the eviction order against the petitioner.

¶12

It is further urged that being aggrieved against the order passed by the respondent No.4, the petitioner preferred an

¶13

appeal wherein in the memo of appeal in Para-5, a specific objection to the aforesaid effect was taken.

¶14

It has also been pointed out that even the lower Appellate Court did not consider the objection raised by the petitioner rather it took into account the report dated 18.10.2022 which needless to say, did not relate to the actual spot position.

¶15

The further submission is that neither the Lekhpal was brought into the witness-box to examine and prove the report and in absence thereof, the order impugned could not be sustained. Practically the order was ex-parte and for the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the appellate Court is also bad in the eyes of law.

¶16

It is further submitted that the revision preferred by the petitioner also does not take note of all the respective submissions and merely it has copied the findings of the appellate Court as well as the Tehsildar in rejecting the revision.

¶17

It has also been urged that the orders suffer from vice of non-consideration that the material on record as well as they do not disclose the reason, hence, the orders are bad.

¶18

Learned standing counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha have objected to the aforesaid submissions, however, could not dispute the fact that proper inspection report was not done nor the Lekhpal had entered into the witness-box to prove his report. They also could not dispute the fact that in light of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, afresh inspection was done on 18.10.2022 and without inviting objections to the said report or without examining the team who had inspected the said property in haste, the order was passed by the respondent No.4 on 29.10.2022.

¶19

In this view of the matter and noticing the dictum of this Court in Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine All 829 , this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and without calling for a counter, this Court sets aside the orders dated 26.04.2024, 24.07.2023 and 29.10.2022 respectively and restore the file to the board of the respondent No.4, who shall after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the matter afresh keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in Rishipal Singh (supra). The petitioner is also directed to cooperate in early hearing and in case if any parties try to misuse the liberty, it will be open for the Court concerned to

¶20

pass appropriate orders and an endeavour would be made by the respondent No.4 to conclude the proceedings within three months after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶21

Subject to the aforesaid, it is stated that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case, hence, with the aforesaid, the petition is allowed . No order as to costs.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Rakesh/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Pragat Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Ayodhya and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pragat Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Ayodhya and 4 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

Smt. Anusuiya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Sumiran @ Ram Sumiran Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti and Another

Shitla Prasad Yadav Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial ), Tehsil Lambhua, Sultanpur and Others

Rudra Nath Misra vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 8 Others

Smt. Anita vs Naib Tehsildar and Another

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Tax Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others vs Krishna Kumar Omar Vaishya and Another