Court dismisses writ petition challenging summary proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Shahban and another, challenging the eviction and penalty orders against them for alleged illegal encroachment on Gram Sabha land. The judgment, pronounced by Justice Alok Mathur, confirmed the summary procedure followed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, rejecting the petitioners' plea for regular proceedings involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, as proposed in a previous case.
The case revolved around the alleged illegal construction of a mosque on land recorded as "Khalihan" in the revenue records, belonging to the Gram Sabha. The Tehsildar had initiated proceedings against the petitioners based on a complaint, leading to an order for eviction and a penalty imposition of Rs.36,000/-. Following an unsuccessful appeal to the Additional District Magistrate, the petitioners approached the High Court, contending procedural violations, including denial of witness examination and cross-examination.
Justice Mathur, in his detailed judgment, emphasized that the existing rules under the U.P. Revenue Code prescribe a summary procedure for such cases, where decisions are typically made based on affidavits. He noted that the guidelines issued in the case of Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P., advocating for a regular procedure, are not enforceable until adopted and incorporated by the State of U.P. through formal amendments. The court ruled that the Tehsildar's procedure was consistent with the current statutory framework and dismissed the petition.
The court acknowledged the absence of evidence directly linking the petitioners to the construction or occupation of the mosque, leading to the penalty being set aside. However, the eviction order remained intact, based on the petitioners' failure to establish any legal rights over the disputed land.
The judgment highlights the ongoing legal debate over procedural norms in land encroachment cases under the U.P. Revenue Code, with the court opting to adhere to the established summary proceedings, pending any legislative amendments.
Bottom Line:
Proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are to be judged based on the existing rules, and guidelines issued in Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P., requiring examination and cross-examination of witnesses, are not mandatory until adopted and incorporated into the rules by the State of U.P.
Statutory provision(s): U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 Section 67, Rules 66 and 67, Section 225-A
Shahban v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2872168
