Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 159774 (ALL)

SHIVKUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/8110/2025 · 2025-08-25

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8110 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Suresh Chand Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. 2. Grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to proceedings under taken against him in exercise of power under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 being declared in illegal occupation and encroacher with regard to Gaon Sabha land situated at Gata No. 157, area 0.518 hectares at Village - Jasarathapur, Tehsil - Misrikh, District - Sitapur which is recorded as "Banjar" in the revenue records. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the notice received by the petitioner the said land is recorded as "Banjar" and as per report of the Lekhpal the petitioner was found to be in illegal occupation of the same and notices were issued to him. 4. The petitioner has put in appearance in the proceedings before the Tehsildar and filed his objections, but did not appear subsequently, which led to passing of order dated 08.10.2024, declaring the petitioner to be in illegal occupation over the Gaon Sabha Land and orders for eviction and imposition of penalty were passed. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 08.10.2024, had Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suresh Chand Rathour Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Shivkumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) preferred appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which has also been rejected by means of order dated 29.05.2025 and both the aforesaid orders have been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 6. It was the case of the petitioner that he was not allotted the disputed land of Gaon Sabha and it is the Pradhan who had permitted the petitioner to raise construction on the said land and accordingly, submits that the occupation of petitioner over the said land was not illegal, but with the consent of the then village Pradhan. The said fact even find mention in para 2 of the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) / appellate authority. The Appellate Authority while considering the case of petitioner was of the view that there was no Patta in favour of petitioner and some unscrupulous elements have taken money from petitioner and had permitted him to make constructions on the disputed land which was recorded as banjar in the revenue records. Accordingly, it was held that petitioner is in illegal occupation over the Gaon Sabha land. 7. Before this Court also the petitioner has reiterated the arguments which he had raised before the trial Court. On consideration of the same, this court finds that there is no legal allotment of Patta in favour of petitioner. Even in the memo of appeal the petitioner had not stated that there was any valid patta existing in his favour. One piece of paper has been annexed as Annexure - 3 to the petitioner by the petitioner in the present writ petition which according to the petitioner is Patta granted in his favour. The said piece of paper is illegible from which nothing can be deciphered. This Court sees no reason to accept contention of the petitioner in this regard inasmuch as, neither before the competent authority under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 nor in the appeal the petitioner was able to produce any Patta allotted in his favour. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court do not find any ground for interference in the impugned orders dated 28.05.2025 and 08.10.2024. There is no material on record to show that occupation of petitioner over the land in dispute is legal and valid. WRIC No. 8110 of 2025 2 9. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. August 25, 2025 A. Verma WRIC No. 8110 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench