Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Chandra Bhan And Others vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|17 December, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41792 of 2019 Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 drawn against the petitioner for his eviction from plot no. 35M. He has been ordered to be evicted from an area of 0.004 hectare of the aforesaid plot.
The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the orders impugned is that proceedings under Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are pending consideration as the house of the petitioner has been in existence from prior to 29.11.2012.
On a pointed query by the Court, as to the evidence in this regard, it is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the only evidence is the report submitted by the Lekhpal. A report is not conclusive, neither can it be the sole basis for granting the benefit under Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
In my opinion, the benefit can only be granted by cogent and direct evidence to be adduced by the petitioner to conclusively establish that his house was in existence on 24.11.2012 over land reserved by an abadi site, under Section 63 of the Code. The land is recorded as Navin Parti. It is prima-facie not earmarked for abadi sites.
Mere pendency of proceedings under Section 67A, in my considered opinion, would not be detrimental to the orders that have been impugned in the writ petition in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
In fact, the argument raised means that the petitioner admits his unauthorized occupation of the plot in question. He also admits the existence of his house thereon.
Under the circumstances, the impugned orders cannot faulted with.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed subject to the observation that the impugned orders shall necessarily abide by the final orders to be passed in proceedings under Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which are stated to be pending having been instituted by the petitioner.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Mayank
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Chandra Bhan And Others vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
17 December, 2019
Judges
  • Anjani Kumar Mishra
Advocates
  • Rajiv Kumar Mishra