Mewa Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mewa Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

With the parties' consent and noticing Rishipal (supra), the petition is disposed of: impugned orders dated 18.10.2023 and 28.02.2023 set aside; Section 67 proceedings restored on the file of respondent no. 3 (SDO), parties to appear on 20.01.2025; fresh inspection in petitioner's presence after notice and completion with full hearing, preferably within eight weeks; merits expressly left to the authority; costs made easy.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders passed in the Section 67, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 proceedings were invalidly passed without verification of the spot report and without examination of the Tehsildar/Lekhpal to prove the facts, and whether the petitioner's appeal ground went unconsidered, contrary to the principles laid down in Rishipal Singh vs State of U.P. and others.

Court's answer

The impugned orders dated 18.10.2023 and 28.02.2023 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 4 respectively shall stand set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 shall stand restored on the Board of respondent no. 3, with the parties to appear on 20.01.2025.

Key takeaways

Respondent no. 3/Sub-Divisional Officer shall obtain a fresh inspection in the presence of the petitioner after giving due notice thereof, and shall complete the proceedings giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties, preferably within eight weeks thereafter.ratio¶17
The Court has not examined the petitioner's case on merits; the authority shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.obiter¶18
If, even after due intimation and notice, the petitioner does not participate or actively engage in the proceedings, the authority shall be within its right to proceed in his absence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Writ-C No. 7138 of 2024, Mewa Lal v. State of U.P. and others (Jaspreet Singh, J.; order dated 2.1.2025): Writ petition against State proceedings under Section 67, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 concerning disputed land over which the petitioner's house (over 30 years old) stands and which is shown as reserved Abadi land in CH-Form 41 (1985). Counsel for the State and Gaon Sabha conceded no counter affidavit would be filed and did not dispute that the Lekhpal had not entered the witness box to prove the statement. Noticing the decision in Rishipal Singh vs State of U.P. and others; 2022 SCC OnLine All 829, and with the consent of counsel, the petition was disposed of: the impugned orders dated 18.10.2023 and 28.02.2023 of respondent nos. 2 and 4 were set aside; the Section 67 proceedings were restored on the file of respondent no. 3 with the parties to appear on 20.01.2025; respondent no. 3/Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to hold a fresh inspection in the petitioner's presence after due notice and complete the proceedings with full opportunity of hearing, preferably within eight weeks. It was clarified that the merits were not examined and the authority may proceed in the petitioner's absence despite notice. Board of Revenue impleaded as respondent no. 6; costs made easy.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7138 of 2024

Petitioner :- Mewa Lal

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Prakash Singh,Ram Raj Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 04.12.2024, the Court had allowed the application for amendment and the petitioner has carried out part amendment, however, inadvertently the petitioner could not implead the Board of Revenue as respondent no.6 and the counsel makes an oral submission that he may be permitted to do so during course of the day.

Having considered the aforesaid, the counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out the necessary impleadment of the Board of Revenue.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits of the matter is that proceedings were initiated by the State under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is urged that there is a report indicating that house of the petitioner is constructed over the disputed land in question and the said house is more than 30 years old.

It is also urged that the said land is reserved for Abadi land as indicated in CH -Form 41 which pertains to the year, 1985. It is in such circumstances that without verifying the spot report and without examining, the Tehsildar to prove the said fact the order has been passed under Section 67. This was assailed by the petitioner by filing an appeal and though a specific ground was taken in the memo of appeal but the same has neither been considered and in any case, the process which has been adopted by the State authorities is contrary to the principles as laid down by this Court in Rishipal Singh vs State of U.P. and others; 2022 SCC OnLine All 829.

Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha, Sri Tej Bali Singh learned Standing counsel for the State

respondent have fairly submitted that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending as they do not propose to file counter affidavit as they could not dispute the fact that the Lekhpal had not entered into the witness box to prove the statement.

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and noticing the decision of this Court in Rishipal (supra) with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of with certain observations:-

(i) that the impugned orders dated 18.10.2023 and 28.02.2023 passed by the respondent nos.2 and 4 respectively shall stand set aside.

(ii) the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 shall stand restored on the Board of the respondent no.3 where the parties will appear on 20.01.2025.

(iii) that the respondent no.3/Sub Divisional Officer after getting a fresh inspection made in presence of the petitioner, after giving due notice of the inspection, shall complete the proceedings with full opportunity of hearing to the parties, preferably, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

It is clarified that the Court has not examined the case of the petitioner on merits and the authority shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law. It is also clarified that even if after due intimation and notice to the petitioner he does not participate or actively engage himself in the proceedings the authority shall be within its right to proceed in absence of the petitioner.

Subject to the aforesaid, the petition shall stand allowed.

Costs are made easy.

Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Harshita

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