Abdul Raheem vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Heard Sri Mohd. Arif, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Azad Rai holding brief of Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for respondent no.5/Gram Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Tehsildar, District Saharanpur in Case No.5438 of 2022 as well as order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Additional Collector (Judicial), Saharanpur in Case No.3994 of 2025, by means of which, an order for eviction has been passed against the petitioner with regard to Khasra No.53 area 0.001539 hectare. Furthermore, a penalty of Rs.10,200/- as well as execution fees of Rs.1000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner. The said order dated 18.06.2025 has been confirmed by the appellate court by means of order dated 15.09.2025.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the notice issued against the petitioner under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 would show that the petitioner has allegedly occupied 0.001539 hectare in Khasra No.53 by constructing a permanent house over the alleged encroached area. He has further relied upon the survey map that has been attached along with notice to contend that the survey map is not correctly made as the map does not denote any fixed point, on the basis of which, the said survey was carried out. He further submits that such a survey map is non est as it does not conform to any of the survey rules or procedure as applicable to survey proceedings with

¶14

WRIC No. 40493 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

regard to revenue proceedings. He has further relied upon the judgment passed in Rishi Pal Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others; 2023 1 ADJ 154 and has submitted that in the said judgment, detailed procedure has been provided where as to how proceedings under Section 67 are to be carried and as to how the reports as well as survey ought to be done. He submits that there is complete violation of the said order and, as such, the impugned orders are per se illegal and arbitrary.

¶17

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, the encroached area was recorded as " Jauhad " in the revenue records and, as such, the petitioner has no right with regard to the said area. Learned Standing Counsel has also placed on record the instructions in the said matter and on the basis of the said instructions, he has submitted that the lease for residential purposes granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by means of order dated 03.01.2019 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, District Saharanpur.

¶18

Matter requires consideration.

¶19

Respondents are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks', thereafter, is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶20

Connect and list this matter on 09.03.2026 along with Writ C No.40488 of 2025; Naseer vs. State of U.P. and 4 others .

¶21

Till the next date of listing, the operation and effect of the impugned orders dated 18.06.2025 and 15.09.2025 shall remain stayed. Petitioner is further restricted from making any new construction on the spot or from creating any third party right over the same.

¶22

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.)

¶23

January 16, 2026

¶24

Priya

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abdul Raheem v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Raheem v. State of U.P. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Anju Chaudhary vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramnath and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shankar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Chimman Lal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Mustakeem vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Aslam vs State of U.P. and 4 Others