# Ram Khelwan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 982
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-18
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 1004000 of 2006
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-khelwan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52778
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, relating to
alleged unauthorized occupation of Gaon Sabha
land and whether instead of eviction, damages
could be awarded and land settled, where the
petitioner claimed possession and construction
prior to commencement of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

Headnotes
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Act, 1950 - Ss. 9, 122-B, 123, 125-A, 333 -
Unauthorized occupation - Old residential
construction
-
Possession
prior
to
commencement of Act - Remedy of
eviction vs. award of damages - Gaon
Sabha land - Residential use - Long
continuous possession - Construction prior
to U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Failure of
authorities to consider evidence - Cursory
findings set aside - Proceedings under S.
122-B - Scope - Where construction is old
and residential - Interest of justice -
Settlement
of
land
on
payment
of
damages instead of eviction - Exercise of
writ jurisdiction - Interference justified
where authorities ignore settled principles
and binding precedents.
Held: Instead of eviction, the authority could
have awarded damages as an alternative relief
in lieu of eviction, taking into consideration, the
duration of occupancy on the land in question
as well as considering the nature of the
unauthorized occupation - If someone is in
authorized occupation over a small piece of land
of Gaon Sabha since long and has constructed
his house then instead of eviction proper relief is
to award damages - In the present case, the
petitioner is in possession over the land before
commencement of UPZA & LR Act; on the said
land he constructed his house; and is still living
with his entire family members and therefore
instead of eviction, proper remedy is to award
damages - Interest of justice would be served
by directing the petitioner to pay damages to
the tune of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of settlement of
land in dispute - Upon deposit of the said
amount within six months, the land shall stand
settled with the petitioner and the impugned
orders dated 27.07.2006 and judgment and
order dated 12.04.2006 shall stand set aside -
Failure to deposit would result in "this order
shall stand automatically vacated and the writ
petition should be deemed to have been
dismissed" - Writ petition allowed.(Paras 14-21)
(E-7)

Case Law Cited
Manno Prasad v. Upper Collector (Prashasan),
Kanpur Dehat & Anr., 2009 (27) LCD 812;
D.C.M. Limited v. The Collector, Ghaziabad &
Ors., 2007 (25) LCD 1194; Bhudaee v. Collector,
2005 (98) RD 741.

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,
1950

List of Keywords
Gaon
Sabha;
Abadi
land;
Unauthorized
occupation; Damages; Eviction; Settlement of
land;
Continuous
possession;
Residential
purpose; Interim order; Interest of justice.
11 All. Ram Khelawan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
983
Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition filed
against
the
judgment
and
order
dated
12.04.2006 passed under S. 122-B of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act and order dated 27.07.2006 passed in
revision under S. 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
affirming eviction proceedings.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Bajrangi Verma
Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Jyotinjay Verma

## Text

982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. In view of the reasons recorded
above, the impugned order dated 2.5.2002
is hereby quashed. The writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 982
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ - C No. 1004000 of 2006

Ram Khelwan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Bajrangi Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Jyotinjay Verma

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to challenge to orders passed
under S. 122-B and S. 333 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, relating to
alleged unauthorized occupation of Gaon Sabha
land and whether instead of eviction, damages
could be awarded and land settled, where the
petitioner claimed possession and construction
prior to commencement of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

Headnotes
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Act, 1950 - Ss. 9, 122-B, 123, 125-A, 333 -
Unauthorized occupation - Old residential
construction
-
Possession
prior
to
commencement of Act - Remedy of
eviction vs. award of damages - Gaon
Sabha land - Residential use - Long
continuous possession - Construction prior
to U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Failure of
authorities to consider evidence - Cursory
findings set aside - Proceedings under S.
122-B - Scope - Where construction is old
and residential - Interest of justice -
Settlement
of
land
on
payment
of
damages instead of eviction - Exercise of
writ jurisdiction - Interference justified
where authorities ignore settled principles
and binding precedents.
Held: Instead of eviction, the authority could
have awarded damages as an alternative relief
in lieu of eviction, taking into consideration, the
duration of occupancy on the land in question
as well as considering the nature of the
unauthorized occupation - If someone is in
authorized occupation over a small piece of land
of Gaon Sabha since long and has constructed
his house then instead of eviction proper relief is
to award damages - In the present case, the
petitioner is in possession over the land before
commencement of UPZA & LR Act; on the said
land he constructed his house; and is still living
with his entire family members and therefore
instead of eviction, proper remedy is to award
damages - Interest of justice would be served
by directing the petitioner to pay damages to
the tune of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of settlement of
land in dispute - Upon deposit of the said
amount within six months, the land shall stand
settled with the petitioner and the impugned
orders dated 27.07.2006 and judgment and
order dated 12.04.2006 shall stand set aside -
Failure to deposit would result in "this order
shall stand automatically vacated and the writ
petition should be deemed to have been
dismissed" - Writ petition allowed.(Paras 14-21)
(E-7)

Case Law Cited
Manno Prasad v. Upper Collector (Prashasan),
Kanpur Dehat & Anr., 2009 (27) LCD 812;
D.C.M. Limited v. The Collector, Ghaziabad &
Ors., 2007 (25) LCD 1194; Bhudaee v. Collector,
2005 (98) RD 741.

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,
1950

List of Keywords
Gaon
Sabha;
Abadi
land;
Unauthorized
occupation; Damages; Eviction; Settlement of
land;
Continuous
possession;
Residential
purpose; Interim order; Interest of justice.
11 All. Ram Khelawan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
983
Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition filed
against
the
judgment
and
order
dated
12.04.2006 passed under S. 122-B of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act and order dated 27.07.2006 passed in
revision under S. 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
affirming eviction proceedings.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Bajrangi Verma
Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Jyotinjay Verma

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional CSC for
respondent - State.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner is challenging the orders
dated 27.07.2006 passed by respondent
No.2 in Revision No.148 of 2005- 2006
under Section 333 of UPZA&LR Act and
judgment and order dated 12.04.2006
passed by respondent No.3 in case No.25 of
2005-06
under
Section
122-B
of
UPZA&LR Act contained as Anneuxre
Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that
father of the petitioner namely late Babulal
was owner of the house in suit prior to
abolition of Zamindari and as per provision
of Section 9 of UPZA&LR Act, 1950 the
land in suit was settled with the house of
the owner namely late Babulal - father of
the petitioner and since then father of the
petitioner was in continuous possession till
his life and after the death of father of the
petitioner the petitioner is in continuous
possession over the house in suit.

4. On 05.02.1987, village of the
petitioner comes under the limit of
Lucknow Nagar Nigam. On 29.07.1994 a
notice in ZA form 49-A was issued to the
petitioner
by
respondent
No.3.
On
21.08.1995 the petitioner filed his written
statement before respondent No.3. On
14.03.2005 statement of P.W.-1 was
recorded
in
connection
to
case
No.25/28/05/06 under Section 122- B of
UPZA&LR Act.

5. On 10.10.2005 statement of D.W.-1
and
D.W.-2
was
recorded
before
respondent
No.3.
On
12.04.2006
respondent No.3 passed the judgment and
order dated 12.04.2006 in case No.25/05/06
against the petitioner under Section 122-B
of UPZA&LR Act.

6. On 26.04.2006, the petitioner
preferred a revision under Section 333 of
UPZA&LR Act before respondent No.2
against order dated 12.04.2006. Vide order
dated
27.07.2006
respondent
No.2
dismissed the revision of the petitioner and
affirmed the finding returned by respondent
No.3, hence present writ petition has been
filed.

7. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the house is built prior
to applicability of U.P. ZA & LR Act and
in this regard the statement of Ram
Khelawan was also taken into consideration
but no finding has been returned on the
statement given by Ram Khelawan and in a
very cursory manner has come to the
conclusion that there is no material or
evidence on record to establish that the
house is built prior to commencement of
UPZA& LR Act.

8. His next submission is that the
house is existing since long and in case by
paying
damages
the
same
can
be
regularized. In support of his submission
that instead eviction from the land in
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dispute, damages would be awarded to the
petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner
has
placed
reliance
upon
following
judgments:

(i) Manno Prasad v. Upper
Collector (Prashasan), Kanpur Dehat
and another reported in 2009(27) LCD
812

(ii) D.C.M. Limited v. The
Collector,
Ghaziabad
and
others
reported in 2007(25)LCD 1194

9. On the other hand, learned Standing
Counsel submits that the impugned orders
do not suffer from infirmity or illegality
and are just and valid orders. The petitioner
could not establish his claim that the house
under possession was built prior to
commencement of UPZA & LR Act.

10. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, I have perused the material
available on record as well as case-laws
cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. It is admitted case of the parties in
the writ petition that interim order was
granted on 24.08.2006 in favour of the
petitioner, which is extracted hereinbelow:

"Learned Chief Standing Counsel
has accepted notice for opposite party no. 1
and 3. Sri Jyotinjaya Verma appeared for
opposite party No.4.

Six week's time is allowed to file
counter affidavit, two weeks for rejoinder
affidavit. List thereafter.

In the meantime operation of
impugned judgment and order dated
27.7.2006 passed by opposite party no.2
contained as Annexure-1 to the writ
petition shall remain stayed."

12. In pursuance to the aboveextracted interim order, the petitioner is in
possession on the land of the Gaon Sabha.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has cited the the following judgment,
operative portion of which is extracted
hereinbelow:

(i) Manno Prasad (supra):-

"3. In proceedings under Section
122-B of the Act, the evidence of the
Lekhpal and other witnesses was taken and
it was found that the constructions raised
by the petitioner was an old one. The
Tehsildar found that the petitioner was
using the land for residential purposes and
that the construction was an old one and
consequently discharged the notice under
Section 122-B of the Act. The Tehsildar,
further directed that the Gaon Sabha may
file a suit, if they are so advised.

5. The Gaon Sabha holds the land
for the benefit of the residents of the
villagers and, from time to time, the Gaon
Sabha allots the land for Abadi purposes
and the allottees are permitted to raise
houses for residential purposes. The
U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.
Act also provides
regularization of unauthorized occupants
belong to Schedule Caste and other
backward classes and also to those
plersons belonging to the general category
living below the poverty line under Section
123 of the Act.

7. In the present case, the
undisputed fact which emerges from the
perusal of the record is, that the land is
recorded as Abadi land. The petitioner was
using a small portion of the land
approximately
95
square
yards
for
residential
purposes
and
that
the
11 All. Ram Khelawan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
985
constructions on this portion was an old
one. Consequently, no useful purpose
would be served, if the petitioner is evicted
and subsequently the same land is allotted
to another person for residential purposes.
Interest of justice would be suffice, if the
land is regularized in favour of the
petitioner on the payment of damages. The
Tehsildar in his notice had estimated the
damages amounting to Rs.4700/- on the
basis of the market value of the land in
question at that moment of time."

(ii) D.C.M. Limited (supra):-

"5. I have held in Bhudaee v.
Collector,2005 (98) RD 741, that if some
one is in authorized occupation over a
small piece of land of Gaon Sabha since
long and has constructed his house then
instead of eviction proper relief is to award
damages. In the said authority, I have also
held that if possession is since late
seventies or early eighties then proper
measure of damages is Rs.100/- per square
yard as it approximate market value of the
abadi land at that time of villages of U.P..
In
view
of
peculiar
facts
and
circumstances, the above principle can be
applied to the instant case also. The
possession is since 1964; the land was not
situated in any abadi area; even for 20
years possession, damages claimed were
Rs.5/- per square yard. In view of this, it
appears that in 1964 the market value of
the land in dispute was hardly Rs.10/- per
square yard Accordingly, in my opinion
interest of justice will best be served by
directing the petitioner to pay damages @
Rs.300/- per square yard in lieu of
settlement of the land in dispute with the
petitioner.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner agreed for the payment of the
aforesaid
compensation
after
slight
hesitation.
The
argument
of
learned
counsel was that damages might be
reduced a bit. However, I do not see any
reason to reduce the damages."

14. On perusal of the aforesaid
judgments, it is found that the Tehsildar
found that the petitioner was using the land
for residential purpose and that the
construction was an old one. The Tehsildar
directed that the Gaon Sabha may evict the
petitioner. Gaon Sabha holds the land for
the benefit of the residents of the villagers
and, from time to time, the Gaon Sabha
allots the land for Abadi purposes and the
allottees are permitted to raise houses for
residential purpose. U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
also
provides
regularization
of
unauthorized
occupants
belonging
to
Schedule Caste and other backward classes
and also to those persons belong to the
general category living below the poverty
line under Section 123 of the Act. Instead
of eviction, the authority could have
awarded damages as an alternative relief in
lieu of eviction, taking into consideration,
the duration of occupancy on the land in
question as well as considering the nature
of the unauthorized occupation coupled
with the are of the encroached portion.

15. It is also apparent from perusal of
the aforesaid judgment that if some one is
in authorized occupation over a small piece
of land of Gaon Sabha since long and has
constructed his house then instead of
eviction proper relief is to award damages.

16. In the present case, the petitioner is
in
possession
over
the
land
before
commencement of UPZA& LR Act; on the
said land he constructed his house; and is
still living with his entire family members.
Instead of eviction, proper remedy is to
award damages and in view of the above,
the judgements relied upon by learned
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel
for
the
petitioner
are
fully
applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the present case.

17. Considering in totalities of facts
and circumstances of the case, in my
opinion, interest of justice would be served
by directing the petitioner to pay damages
to the tune of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of
settlement of land in dispute.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has agreed for payment of aforesaid
compensation after slight hesitation. The
argument of learned counsel was that
damages might be reduced a bit. However,
I do not see any reason to reduce the
damages.

19. Accordingly, it is directed that
within a period of six months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order,
the petitioner shall deposit Rs.25,000/- and on
payment of the said amount, the land shall
stand settled with the petitioner and the
impugned orders dated 27.07.2006 passed by
respondent No.2 in Revision No.148 of 2005-
2006 under Section 333 of UPZA&LR Act
and judgment and order dated 12.04.2006
passed by respondent No.3 in case No.25 of
2005-06 under Section 122-B of UPZA&LR
Act contained as Anneuxre Nos.1 and 2 to
the writ petition shall stand set aside.

20. It is, however, made clear that if
the aforesaid amount is not deposited
within the period stipulated by this Court,
this order shall stand automatically
vacated and the writ petition should be
deemed to have been dismissed. The
aforesaid amount shall be deposited
before the Divisional Officer concerned
for beking kept in consolidated Gaon
fund constituted under Section 125-A of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

21. In the result, this writ petition is
allowed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 986
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ - C No. 3000108 of 2002

State Of U.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Anwar Alam & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dipak Seth, A.R. Khan, Jagdish Prasad
Maurya, Mohammad Aslam Khan, Ratnesh
Chandra

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to inclusion or exclusion of Plot
No. 508/5-350 hectares (13-173 acres) irrigated
land in the holding of the original tenure holder
Bhagwan Singh under the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and the
legality of the appellate order dated 14.10.1999
passed under S. 13 of the Ceiling Act.

Headnotes
U.P.
Imposition
of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings Act, 1960 - Ss. 5(6), 5(8), 10(2),
and 13 - Surplus Land - Clubbing of
holdings - Title dispute - Effect of remand
- Doctrine of res judicata - Applicability -
Will Deed - Consideration by appellate
authority - Execution during pendency of
proceedings - Validity - Writ jurisdiction
under
Article
226
-
Scope
-
Reappreciation of findings of fact - Delay and
laches - Appellate authority as final factfinding body - Reliance on revenue entries
and mutation orders.
Held: The core dispute revolves around the
inclusion of plot no.508/5-350 hectares in the