# Dayaram Yadav & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1835
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-06
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, C.J. Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dayaram-yadav-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43860
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

1836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held -

Para 1: The court notes the State's failure to implement the 2014 Om Prakash Varma judgment, which
provided detailed guidelines for removing encroachments under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act.
Para 2: It is noted that Section 122-B has been replaced by Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
which now governs these proceedings.
Para 3: Petitioners provided specific lists of unenforced eviction orders and pending proceedings in three
villages (Gharwaspur, Deoria, and Baruiya) in District Mirzapur.
Para 4: The Court criticizes the "lack of administrative will." It emphasizes that Rule 67(6) requires
enquiries to be finished within 90 days, yet the Court is "deluged" by petitions due to state apathy.
Para 5: The Principal Secretary (Revenue) is directed to circulate previous judgments to all Collectors and
create a transparent, public-facing system to register and track encroachment complaints.
Para 6: The Court directs the streamlining of Section 67 proceedings and mandates a "plan of action" to
ensure accountability. It links the state's severe drought to the destruction of ponds and green areas by
encroachers.
Para 7: The Court reiterates its intent to strengthen enforcement procedures to protect the public interest.
Para 8: Specifically for the Mirzapur villages, the District Magistrate must verify the status of the lists
provided and ensure pending cases are concluded or orders are enforced immediately.
Para 9: The petition is disposed of with these mandatory directions.

PIL Allowed with Directions.

Case Laws Cited:-

Om Prakash Varma & Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, (PIL) No. 64014 of 2011, decided on 28
May 2014.
Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs Kamla Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496.
Jagpal Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396.

## Text

5 All. Dayaram Yadav & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1835
28. The submission that has been made, in my considered opinion is valid only for
interpretation of various Sections of the Act itself. It cannot be gainfully submitted that a redundant
provision in the subordinate legislation namely the Rules can regulate a over ride a categorical
provision in the Act itself.

29. The Rule relied upon namely Rule 338 as also the entry at Sl.No.19 in Appendix III
were substituted by a notification dated 25th August 1953. Section 166 has been included in the Act
in 1981. The Rules framed earlier in time cannot in my considered opinion regulate and govern a
subsequent incorporation in the Act itself.

30. In this connection, it would further be relevant to note that Section 163 was omitted
from the statue because of the amendment made in the Act by the U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act
1982, Act No.20 of 1982 as it had ceased to have any relevance in view of the amended provisions.

31. Besides the following extract from the Prefactory Note 1- Exract from Statement of
Objects and Reasons as attached to the bill which became Act No.20 of 1983, further clarifies the
position beyond any semblance of doubt -

"3. Under the existing provisions the transfers made in contravention fo the
provisions of the said Act are declared void after following the given procedure. It has been
considered necessary to provide that such transfers shall be deemed to be void and no declaration
shall be necessary therefor."

32. The writ petition is therefore dismissed
-----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YASHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.- 20672 Of 2016

Dayaram Yadav & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Rajiv Lochan Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shri Ram Babu Yadav
1836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held -

Para 1: The court notes the State's failure to implement the 2014 Om Prakash Varma judgment, which
provided detailed guidelines for removing encroachments under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act.
Para 2: It is noted that Section 122-B has been replaced by Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
which now governs these proceedings.
Para 3: Petitioners provided specific lists of unenforced eviction orders and pending proceedings in three
villages (Gharwaspur, Deoria, and Baruiya) in District Mirzapur.
Para 4: The Court criticizes the "lack of administrative will." It emphasizes that Rule 67(6) requires
enquiries to be finished within 90 days, yet the Court is "deluged" by petitions due to state apathy.
Para 5: The Principal Secretary (Revenue) is directed to circulate previous judgments to all Collectors and
create a transparent, public-facing system to register and track encroachment complaints.
Para 6: The Court directs the streamlining of Section 67 proceedings and mandates a "plan of action" to
ensure accountability. It links the state's severe drought to the destruction of ponds and green areas by
encroachers.
Para 7: The Court reiterates its intent to strengthen enforcement procedures to protect the public interest.
Para 8: Specifically for the Mirzapur villages, the District Magistrate must verify the status of the lists
provided and ensure pending cases are concluded or orders are enforced immediately.
Para 9: The petition is disposed of with these mandatory directions.

PIL Allowed with Directions.

Case Laws Cited:-

Om Prakash Varma & Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, (PIL) No. 64014 of 2011, decided on 28
May 2014.
Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs Kamla Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496.
Jagpal Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)

1. The writ petition which has been filed in the public interest has highlighted the failure of
the State to implement the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28 May 2014 in Om
Prakash Varma & Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. This judgment of the Division Bench
dealt with the serious issue of encroachments on public utility lands, including among them lands
which are reserved for parks, ponds and pasture lands which are being increasingly encroached
upon in the absence of any remedial action by the State Government. The Division Bench adverted
to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs Kamla Devi and Jagpal Singh Vs
State of Punjab. The Court formulated detailed guidelines and issued directions, having due regard
to the provisions of Section 122-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 and the Rules which have been framed under the said legislation. Comprehensive
guidelines have been issued in regard to the discharge of duties by the District Collectors, to initiate
proceedings under Section 122-B and where the proceedings have been concluded, to enforce the
orders in accordance with the provisions of the Rules.
5 All. Dayaram Yadav & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1837
2. In the present case, the writ petition has highlighted the fact of non-implementation of orders
or, as the case may be, failure to conclude the proceedings which have been initiated under Section 122-B.
We may note, at this stage, that Section 122-B has now been succeeded by the provisions of Section 67 of
the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code-2006 which has recently come into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

3. The petitioners have annexed two lists at Annexures-14 and 15 to the writ petition. The first list
contains a tabulated chart in relation to village Gharwaspur where orders have been passed under Section
122-B, which according to the petitioners, have not been enforced. The second list contains a tabulated
statement in relation to villages Deoria and Baruiya. All three villages fall in the district of Mirzapur.

4. In our view, since the Division Bench has already laid down comprehensive guidelines and has
issued directions to the State Government in Om Prakash Verma (supra), the issue which now really
remains is the lack of administrative will to secure enforcement of the directions. This is a serious matter
which must necessarily be taken up by the Court. We may note that the provisions of Section 67 and 136
of the U P Revenue Code, 2006 sufficiently empower the respondents to rid public utility lands from
encroachments. Rule 67 (6) of the U P Revenue Code Rules, 2006 mandates that the Assistant Collector
shall conclude the enquiry under Section 67 within 90 days of the issuance of the show cause notice and in
case of failure to adhere to the time frame, the authority is obliged to record reasons. Yet this Court on a
daily basis is deluged by petitions alleging failure to act against encroachments or apathy in implementing
orders of eviction. The obligation to preserve land meant for public utility purposes rests upon the State.
Action against encroachments cannot be left to depend upon individuals instituting legal proceedings to
secure enforcement of the mandate cast by Sections 67 and 136.

5. Hence, we are of the view that within a period of one month from today, the Principal Secretary
(Revenue) shall take all necessary steps to circulate a copy of the judgment and order of this Court dated
28 May 2014 and this judgment to all the District Collectors. The problem shall be addressed at various
levels. Firstly, where there are complaints of unauthorized encroachments, these complaints must be duly
registered by the District Collectors and steps have to be initiated to deal with the encroachments on public
utility lands in accordance with law. In order to ensure transparency in administration, the Principal
Secretary (Revenue) will formulate guidelines that would ensure that all complaints of unauthorized
encroachments are registered. The details of the complaints must be maintained in a manner which is open
for public inspection so that citizens are enabled to know the fate of the complaints and the proceedings
which have been initiated. Secondly, the process of initiating proceedings under Section 67 must be
streamlined so that the complaints are enquired into expeditiously and proceedings are adopted with due
process of law and are concluded without delay. The circular shall also make provision for laying down
time lines for redressal of complaints, completion of enquiries and steps to be taken for enforcement. The
Principal Secretary (Revenue) is directed to highlight the mandate of Rule 67 (6) referred to above.
Thirdly, where orders have been passed under Section 67 (or as the case may be in earlier proceedings
under Section 122-B), it is necessary that compliance of orders should be duly made under the applicable
provisions of law.

6. Non-enforcement of orders under Section 122-B or, as the case may be, under Section 67 is
also a serious matter since it amounts to dereliction of duties on the part of the administration to enforce
1838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compliance of the orders for the removal of unauthorized encroachments. Undoubtedly, the persons who
are affected by proceedings and orders, are entitled to pursue their rights and remedies in accordance with
law. Hence, when these issues repeatedly come before this Court, a direction is issued for the purpose of
verifying whether the order continues to hold the field or is subject matter of any other proceedings before
a revisional forum. Where stay has been granted and where revisional remedies are pursued, the matter
must be brought to expeditious conclusion. These guidelines which we have laid down, in addition to
those of the judgment of the Division Bench in Om Prakash Verma (supra), are by way of guidelines to
the Principal Secretary (Revenue) who is the head of the administration in such matters and matters
pertaining to revenue. We now expect that the Principal Secretary shall duly apply his mind, preferably
within a period of two months from today of the need to lay down a complete plan of action to ensure
accountability on the part of the district administration and to ensure transparency in governance. The State
is passing through a severe drought as a result of depletion of groundwater resources. Much of this
situation is a result of rampant encroachments of the spaces which are earmarked for public utility
purposes, including green areas, pasture lands and ponds etc. Unless serious steps are taken to remedy the
situation, the situation will become more serious than the present.

7. In these circumstances, this Court would be constrained to reiterate the guidelines which were
issued in Om Prakash Verma (supra) and to further direct the State to strengthen the procedure for
enforcement so as to secure the interest of the public.

8. Insofar as the two lists (Annexure-14 and 15) are concerned, we direct the Collector and
District Magistrate to cause a due verification of the facts which are set out in the writ petition. Where
proceedings are pending, they shall be concluded expeditiously. Where orders have been passed and are
awaiting enforcement, the district administration shall take necessary steps in accordance with law after
verifying that the orders continue to hold the field and have not been stayed or modified by any higher
forum.

9. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, J.

Writ C No.- 59588 Of 2008

Ashok ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents