Shrikant and Others Vs Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49181

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 886 of 2024

Petitioner :- Shrikant And Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Ujagir Verma,Nityendra Singh,Sachin Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amal Rastogi,Avinash Dixit,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Pritish Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The present dispute arises of proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, which was initiated on the behest of the respondents no. 4 and 5 stating that they are the owner and recorded tenure holder of Gata No. 1193 measuring 0.1620 hectares, situated at village Neemteekar, Pargana Bachhrawan, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Raibareli. It is on the application that the notices were issued to all the tenure holders having land Gata No. 1193 which included the petitioners who claim themselves to be the recorded tenure holder of Gata No. 1194. It is during the proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code that a survey report was called for from the Tehsildar, Maharajganj, who submitted his report on 4.7.2023. According to the said report, it was indicated that with regard to Gata No. 1193 there is an encroachment of area of 8x42 meters i.e. 336 Sq. Meter by opposite party no.6 and encroachment of 11x10 meters i.e. 110 Sq. Meters by Bhagwan Deen son of Thanayee and 8.5x16 i.e. 136 Sq. Meter by Shrikant, Indrakant, Shashikant and Rajnikant sons of Bhagauti Prasad. On the basis of the said survey report notices were issued to all the aforesaid persons, who alleged to encroach upon Gata No. 1193 and objections filed by them.

¶8

According to Mool Chand in his objection he has stated that the facts have been concealed by the respondents to the effect that the portion of Gata No. 1193 area 0.328 hectares has been acquired by National Highway Authority of India and also stated that survey has not been conducted as per the statutory provisions. Similarly Shrikant has also filed objections on 4.11.2023 stating that Gata No. 1193 is situated adjacent to Gata No. 1194 M /0.458 hectares and he also stated that survey has not been done properly and prayed for setting aside the survey report.

¶9

WRIB No. 886 of 2024

¶10

2

¶11

Respondents no. 4 and 5 had opposed said objection and stated that entire survey has been done in accordance with law, which was admitted that in Gata No. 1193/ 0.0328 hectare had been acquired by the National Highway Authority and in the application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code he has sought demarcation of the remaining land of 0.1292 hectares. He has stated that it is the petitioners have illegally encroached upon the said land an were required to be evicted from the same. He has further stated that the survey was conducted after obtaining the fixed points and it was further stated that a field book was duly created and an entry was made therein and there is no infirmity in the said survey. It was further noticed that during the survey process Bhagwandeen was present but has refused to sign the proceedings.

¶12

It has further come on record that on 19.1.2024 the Revenue Inspector was also cross examined where the Revenue Inspector maintained his stand about properly conducting the survey proceedings and has also duly taken care of the fixed points. During his testimony it was stated that in Gata No. 1193 out of total area 0.162 hectares, 336 Sq. Meters has been encroached by Moolchand son of Santu, 110 Sq. Meter by Bhagwandeen son of Thanayee and 136 Sq. Meters by Shrikant, Indrakant, Shashikant and Rajnikant sons of Bhagauti Prasad and there is only 1038 Sq. Meters by respondents no. 4 and 5, who are recorded as tenure holders are in possession.

¶13

He has further stated that out of the aforesaid land 3 Sq. Meter is recorded as National Highway Authority and further admitted that in his report he has not mentioned the National highway Authority in as much as the said Highway has not been an authority and therefore the entry in this regard could not be made by him. The Sub Divisional Magistrate after considering the entire objections and the entire material including the survey report, found that there was substantial material that the petitioners have illegally encroached upon Gata No. 1193 therefore rejected the objections raised by the petitioners and approved the survey report dated 4.7.2023 and directed the Authorities to proceed accordingly.

¶14

Petitioners being aggrieved by the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 8.2.2024, have preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Judicial-I. In the said appeal all the objections raised before the Sub Divisional Magistrate were re-agitated and were duly looked into by the Revisional Authority. He has considered the fact that Mool Chand son of Santu is the recorded co tenure holder of Gata No. 1192, while Bhagwandeen son of Thanayee is recorded tenure holder of Gata No. 1194 M. and no formal partition had been applied by them and it is due to this fact they have deliberately captured the plot of land. He further took notice of the fact that they have not filed any Naqsa Nazri with regard to the holdings and also considered the fact that the petitioners have already taken compensation from the National Highway Authority for the land which has been acquired. He has examined the survey report dated 4.7.2023 and

¶15

WRIB No. 886 of 2024

¶16

3

¶17

found that the same has been prepared totally in accordance with law and further took note of the fact that the petitioners have changed the use of the land without obtaining permission under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, which is a punishable offence. He has further considered the objections of the petitioners with regard to the opportunity being given to them and it is found that the petitioners were duly served and notices were sent to them and also considered the fact that before the S.D.M. they had appeared and filed their objections which were duly considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and it is only after hearing of all the parties that the order dated 8.2.2024 was passed deciding the objections in favour of the private respondents and against the petitioners and accordingly did not find any merit in the said appeal and find that the petitioners had encroached upon Gata No. 1193 and accordingly dismissed the appeal, by means of order dated 20.6.2024.

¶18

The petitioners thereafter filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue again looked into the entire facts and found that the S.D.M. has decided the application under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code placing reliance of the survey report of Inspector dated 4.7.2023 and also taken into the account that the fixed points of Gata No. 1210, 1211, 1212 and 1213 were taken into account and the entire area was measured. Accordingly he did not find any infirmity with the said measurements and reaffirmed the findings returned by the Sub Divisional Magistrate,. The Additional Commissioner, Judicial -I had held that there was no ground for interference of the fact recorded by all the Authorities below and also held that the petitioners could not point out any material irregularity in the aforesaid proceedings and consequently rejected the revision.

¶19

The petitioners in the present writ petition has assailed the orders of all the Authorities below and reiterated the grounds raised before them. This Court has also looked into all the materials and the facts as submitted by the petitioners. It is found that firstly proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code are proceedings for demarcation. In the present case the grievance was raised by the respondents no.4 and 5, who are recorded tenure holder of Gata No. 1193 measuring 0.1620 hectares, situated at village Neemteekar, Pargana Bachhrawan, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Raibareli. It is during the said proceedings that a survey report was called for and accordingly survey report dated 4.7.2023 was submitted. Several objections were filed by the petitioners against survey report and it was found that notices were issued to the petitioners prior to survey report, where some of the petitioners were present but willfully and deliberately did not sign, subsequently the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, District Balrampur rejected the appeal. He found that the petitioners have encroached upon Gata No. 1193. He has also considered the fact that the plots of the petitioners were adjacent to Gata No. 1193 but deliberately the petitioners did not get their land demarcated and captured all the plots of land. The entire factual aspect of the matter has been duly considered by the appellate authority i.e. Additional Commissioner as well as by the Board of Revenue.

¶20

WRIB No. 886 of 2024

¶21

4

¶22

All the Authorities have concluded that there is no infirmity in the process adopted under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India would only see the process which has been examined by the Authorities below and do not find infirmity so as to interfere with the said proceedings.

¶23

Accordingly for the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Muk

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shrikant and Others v. Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant and Others v. Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Babbu @ Babu Shekh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Parashu Ram and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Deptt. of Forest Thru. Prin. Chief Forest Conservator, Lko. and Others

Piyare vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Ram Janam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Deptt. of Revenue), Lko. and Others

Ram Janam Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Deptt. of Revenue), Lko. and Others