Shiv Mangal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others

Heard Sri Anil Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey for respondent No.4.

¶10

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, wherein the petitioner has been found to be in illegal encroachment of gata No.926 M. area 0.544 hectare situated at Village Javar, Pargana Godawa, Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi which has been recorded as a pond.

¶11

On the notice issued by the Tehsildar to the petitioner, the petitioner had duly appeared and file his objections stating that the proceedings initiated against him were illegal and arbitrary and that the petitioner has been singled out for the said coercive action despite the fact that numerous other houses have been constructed on the disputed land. In the objections the petitioner could not indicate that he was in legal and valid possession of the land which was the subject matte of dispute before the Tehsildar. Accordingly after considering various revenue reports as well as the objections filed by the petitioner by means of order dated 11.12.2019 orders for eviction and imposition of penalty of Rs.27500/- were imposed upon the petitioner.

¶12

WRIC No. 216 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2019 had preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate before whom also the petitioner could not indicate or demonstrate that he was in legal possession of the disputed land and accordingly, District Magistrate, Hardoi also found that the petitioner was in illegal encroachment of gata No.960 M area 0.011 hectare and accordingly affirmed the order for eviction and imposition of penalty passed y Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Sandila, District Hardoi.

¶15

Before this Court, the petitioner has reiterated the same facts but could not dispute that the land of gata No.926 M is recorded as Talab and submitted that there are numerous other persons who have also made constructions like the petitioner. It is only the petitioner who has been singled out for coercive action under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code. It was further submitted that the amount of penalty of Rs.27500/- is highly unreasonable as the allegation against the petitioner is that he was found to be in illegal encroachment for only 0.11 hectare and accordingly prayed that the amount of penalty deserves to be reduced.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the writ petition stating that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner has encroached upon gaon sabha land and consequently in proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code he was liable to be evicted from the said land and accordingly submitted that there is no infirmity with regard to the same. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner could not demonstrate that he had any right, title or interest over the disputed property and for the aforesaid reasons have opposed the writ petition.

¶17

I have heard the rival contentions and also perused the record.

¶18

It is noticed that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for being evicted from the land which was situated at gata N.926 M. area 0.544 hectare situated at Village Javar, Pargana Godawa, Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi which was recorded as a pond and

¶19

WRIC No. 216 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

the pond land has to be taken back by the said authorities as has been clearly held by the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari and, therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the coercive action taken by the respondents against the petitioner for evicting him.

¶22

Either before the Tehsildar or before the appellate authority and even before this Court the petitioner could not demonstrate any right, title or interest in the disputed property due to which he could have occupied the disputed land, which is recorded as talab . Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court does no find any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 11.12.2019 as well as 29.11.2024.

¶23

With regard to amount of penalty of Rs.27500/-, this Court is of the considered opinion that on the face of it it is extremely harsh and is on the higher side and no reason have been given for calculations of the amount of penalty. Considering that the occupation of the petitioner is on very small piece of land and that he was a poor and marginal farmer interference is made in the order of penalty which is reduce from 27500/- to Rs.5000/-.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed.

¶25

The District Magistrate, Hardoi is further directed to look into the illegal encroachments which are on pond land of gata No.926 M area 0.544 hectare of Village Javar, pargana, Godawa, Tehsil Sandila District Hardoi and any other encroachment on the said land shall also be proceeded against in accordance with law with expedition.

¶26

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶27

January 16, 2026 RKM.

¶28

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

Shiv Mangal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Mangal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavan Kumar and 5 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Distt. Amethi and 25 Others

M/S Mahawar Marketings Private Limited Thru. Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Mahawar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Vind Mati vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Poonam Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Abdulla Khan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Shrawasti and Others

Shripati vs Collector Thru. State of U.P., Ambedkar Nagar and 4 Others