Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31565 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shiv Chand Alias Shivchandra Rajbhar 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 petitioner and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 instituted against the petitioner for his eviction from plot no. 178 area 0.909 hectare recorded as Khalihan in the revenue record.
The Tehsildar vide order dated 06.02.2018 directed eviction of the petitioner imposing damages to the tune of Rs. 9000/-.
Against this order the petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2019.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Tehsildar was ex-parte. At the appellate stage, he was not afforded any opportunity to adduce evidence and therefore no evidence could be produced by him. His house has been in existence for a long period of time but has been ordered to be demolished. No proper demarcation was resorted to by the respondents before passing the orders impugned.
Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that any application either seeking a demarcation or seeking time to adduce evidence was ever filed even at the revisional stage.
The revisional court is normally not required to permit evidence to be adduced. Therefore, the revisional court was under no statutory obligation to grant time to the petitioner to adduce evidence without a prayer being made for the same. It was for the petitioner to have applied for the same which has not been done. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be assailed on the plea raised by counsel for the petitioner namely that he has not been afforded opportunity to adduce evidence. As submitted by counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the Tehsildar is ex-parte. Therefore, it was all the more necessary for the petitioner to have filed evidence. This has not been done.
Under the circumstances and since the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence, no interference is required in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly found to be without merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 sweta