# Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 367
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-02
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 6658 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rishipal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48025
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - UP Revenue Code, 20106 -
Sections 26, 67, 67-A & 68 - Construction
over the public land - Long Standing
Possession of the villagers - Order to
dislodge
such
villagers,
how
far
permissible - Exparte report was prepared
by the Lekhpal, how far relevant - Held,
many people in the village areas are
replacing old mud made walls and earthen
tiles roof by permanent cemented linter
structure and this transformation from old
to new, at times becomes matter of
complaint of unauthorized possession - If
innocent villager is dislodged from the
long standing possession only on the
ground that he has raised new cemented
construction, it would defeat the very
purpose
and
objective
behind
the
incorporation of such a provision under
the Act - Further held, upon bare reading
of sub-section 1 of Section 67-A, it
transpires that legislature intended not to
disturb old standing residential structures
of certain categories of villagers - High
Court
issued
guidelines
to
ensure
transparency in the procedure relating to
dislodge a long standing possession. (Para
46, 60 and 74)
B. Civil Law - UP Revenue Code, 20106 -
Section 67(5) - Duty of Appellate authority
- Application for stay filed in the Appeal -
Time limit for disposing the application and
appeal - Held, the appeals are creation of
statute and, therefore, while entertaining
the appeal, the appellate authority must
dispose of pending stay applications against
the order of Assistant Collector within two
weeks or so and until such disposal,
therefore,
revenue
authorities
should
restrain
themselves
from
taking
any
coercive measure - Endeavour of the
appellate authority should always be to
dispose of appeals filed under Section 67(5)
quite expeditiously and if there is no other
legal impediment, within a maximum period
of three months (Para 72)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,840 of 75,383. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39840 for what follows._

12 All. Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
367
leaving his Sentry Post unattended. He did no
such thing. He went to Gate No.2 and stated
an altercation with his colleagues posted
there which resulted in fisticuffs. The
petitioner did not inform any Competent
Officer of the incident either immediately or
soon after debriefing. The lodging of
criminal complaint and of FIR at the
intervention of the CJM Kanpur Nagar only
substantiate the stand of the Respondents
that
the
petitioner
is
a
wilful
and
indisciplined employee.

44. This Court having considered all
the circumstances which led to the passing
of the impugned order does not find it
appropriate to interfere in the punishment of
compulsory retirement. He would be entitled
to all service benefits of a duly retired
employee.

45. The Writ Petition lacks merit and
is dismissed.

46. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 367
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 6658 of 2022
Connected With
Other Cases

Rishipal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shailendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
C.S.C., Sri Arun Kumar Pandey

A. Civil Law - UP Revenue Code, 20106 -
Sections 26, 67, 67-A & 68 - Construction
over the public land - Long Standing
Possession of the villagers - Order to
dislodge
such
villagers,
how
far
permissible - Exparte report was prepared
by the Lekhpal, how far relevant - Held,
many people in the village areas are
replacing old mud made walls and earthen
tiles roof by permanent cemented linter
structure and this transformation from old
to new, at times becomes matter of
complaint of unauthorized possession - If
innocent villager is dislodged from the
long standing possession only on the
ground that he has raised new cemented
construction, it would defeat the very
purpose
and
objective
behind
the
incorporation of such a provision under
the Act - Further held, upon bare reading
of sub-section 1 of Section 67-A, it
transpires that legislature intended not to
disturb old standing residential structures
of certain categories of villagers - High
Court
issued
guidelines
to
ensure
transparency in the procedure relating to
dislodge a long standing possession. (Para
46, 60 and 74)
B. Civil Law - UP Revenue Code, 20106 -
Section 67(5) - Duty of Appellate authority
- Application for stay filed in the Appeal -
Time limit for disposing the application and
appeal - Held, the appeals are creation of
statute and, therefore, while entertaining
the appeal, the appellate authority must
dispose of pending stay applications against
the order of Assistant Collector within two
weeks or so and until such disposal,
therefore,
revenue
authorities
should
restrain
themselves
from
taking
any
coercive measure - Endeavour of the
appellate authority should always be to
dispose of appeals filed under Section 67(5)
quite expeditiously and if there is no other
legal impediment, within a maximum period
of three months (Para 72)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Heard Sri Shailendra Singh, Ajay
Tripathi,
Surya
Prakash
Pandey,
M.J.Akhtar, Rajesh Kumar, Dhirendra
Prasad, Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Rahul
Kumar Tyagi, Harish Chandra Dubey,
Sheikh Moazzam Inam, Adarsh Tripathi,
Sri S.K.Chaubey, Sri V.K.Upadhyay, Sri
K.N.Singh, Kharag Singh, Abhay Raj
Yadav, Vidya Kant Tripathi, Dwijendra
Prasad, Pravesh Kumar, Shailendra Yadav,
Rahul Kumar Tyagi, Pramod Kumar
Pandey, Birendra Pratap Yadav, Vinod
Kumar Yadav, Naveen Kumar, K.K.Yadav
and
H.C.Yadav,
learned
Advocates
appearing for the respective petitioners and
Sri Sudhir Bharti, Sunil Kumar Singh,
Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Achal Singh, Deepak
Gaur, Pradeep Singh, Sher Bahadur Singh,
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Hari Narayan
Singh, learned counsel for their respective
Gaon/ Gram Sabhas and Sri Abhishek
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel, assisted by Sri R.S.Umrao,
learned Standing Counsel, Sri Rahul
Malviya, Sri Anand Bhaskar Srivastava, Sri
Ashok Kumar Khushwaha, Sri S.K.Pandey,
P.K.Kaushik,
Sri
Amit
Singh,
Sri
Dhananjay
Singh,
Sri
Chandrasekhar
Vaisya, Sri Amit Dubey, Sri Rakesh
Kumar,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State respondents.

1. All these petitions connected
together raise common question of law
and hence have been heard together and
are being decided by this common
judgment.

2. The common question of law that
arises for consideration relates to the
procedure to be adopted by the revenue
authorities in exercise of their power under
Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as "Revenue Code")
and Section 26 thereof.

3.

The
grievances
raised
by
petitioners in their respective writ petitions
more or less relate to the manner and
method in which spot inspection is
conducted, report prepared and at times
without giving opportunity to the aggrieved
party to contest the report, the orders are
passed. There are cases where straight
away, the Assistant Collector 1st Class/
Tehsildar concerned has proceeded to pass
final order under Section 67 of the Revenue
Code.

4. Yet another legal point that has
been argued by learned counsel appearing
for the respective parties, is relating to
settlement of old construction sites with
occupier of the building under Section 67A of the Revenue Code. Fact position in
cases though may very but the challenge to
orders impugned raise common legal issues
as have been referred to hereinabove.

5. I am taking writ petition no. 6658
of 2022 to be the leading writ petition. The
original
records
of
the
proceedings
instituted under Section 67 of the Revenue
Code against the petitioner in the leading
petition have also been placed before the
Court by learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel, in order to appreciate the
procedure adopted in the instant case.

6. Briefly stated facts of the case are
that a case under Section 67 of the U.P.
Revenue Code has been instituted against
the petitioner on the basis of some report
submitted by the local area Lekhpal on RC
form-19, in which petitioner has been held
to be illegally occupying 21 square meters
of land of plot no. 285, a miljumla number,
situated in Village Ladawali, Tehsil Kanth,
District Moradabad, by building a house
upon the same whereas the land belonged
to Gaon Sabha and so a public land. The
12 All. Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
369
petitioner in response to the notice, issued
on RC Form 20, submitted his objection on
25th July, 2018 disputing the claim of the
Gram Panchayat qua the land in question
and the plea taken was that the land stood
settled with petitioner some 60 years ago.
The houses of the petitioner and his
brothers Balram Singh and Latoor Singh
were built upon the land some 60 years ago
falling in plot no. 285, in Khata No. 411 of
the
concerned
revenue
village.
The
petitioner also claimed to have converted
the old mud house into a linter based
cemented house and he even had instituted
a suit in civil court seeking permanent
prohibitory injunction being O.S. No. 462
of 2018, which was pending.

7. It transpires from the record that
the Lekhapal had submitted some report on
the basis of which proceedings were drawn.
During pendency of proceeding before the
Tehsildar, the local area Lekhpal Yogendra
Singh was got examined and crossexamined and Khatauni and village map
were also filed. The court on the basis of
the report of the Lekhpal, khatuani, photo
copy of the village map, returned a finding
of fact that land falling in the disputed area
was navinparti land, which belonged to
Gaon Sabha and upon which illegal
possession of the petitioner was found to
the extent of 81 square meters. Lekhpal
recorded his statement that petitioner was
in unauthorized possession and so the
Tehsildar believed that statements of the
Lekhpal have proved the unauthorized
possession
of
the
petitioner.
The
petitioner's claim of having his house for
the last 50-60 years, was repelled on the
ground that the petitioner had not been able
to lead any evidence to prove in support of
the said claim. The Tehsildar further
recorded that there was no injunction order
passed by the civil court in a pending suit
and such suit would be binding only upon
the parties to the lis. The Authority
concluded that since Lekhpal had proved
unauthorized possession of the petitioner
upon the land that belonged to Gaon Sabha,
the petitioner deserved ejectment forthwith.
Thus, the Authority passed a final order
under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code
directing not only ejectment of the
petitioner from the land in question but
even imposed damages of Rs. @ 23,065/-
per month taking valuation of the property
to be Rs. 7,461,700/-. The Assistant
Collector
1st
Class/Tehsildar
further
imposed Rs. 4,000/- as a cost for execution
of the order.

8. Against the order passed by the
Authority under Section 67 of the Revenue
Code, petitioner preferred appeal under
Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006.
The
appellate
authority/Collector/District
Magistrate,
Moradabad
perused
the
records
and
concluded finally that there was sufficient
evidence available on record to prove that
petitioner had raised constructions upon a
navinparti
land,
which
resulted
in
unauthorized possession. The Appellate
Authority believed that Naksa Nazri (hand
sketched spot map) prepared for the said
purpose proved unauthorized possession
and thus upheld the order passed by the
Assistant Collector 1st Class.

9. The argument advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner and other
Advocates
who
have
appeared
for
respective petitioners are:

a.
no
proper
survey
was
conducted to demarcate the exact area of
the land that belonged to Gaon Sabha as
navinparti so as to trace out area of alleged
unauthorized possession;
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

b. Spot survey should have been
conducted in presence of the party who was
alleged to have encroached upon Gaon
Sabha land so as to ascertain unauthorized
possession. So there was no transparency in
the procedure adopted in preparation of
spot report inasmuch as the report even was
not technically sound;

c. A mere sketch of map with
visual observations would not suffice the
need
of
survey
and
inspection
as
contemplated under Rule 67 of the U.P.
Revenue Rules,2016 (hereinafter referred
to as "Rules, 2016");

d. There was clear violation of
principles of natural justice because ex
parte reports prepared were never supplied
to the petitioners, nor were they given any
opportunity to file objection to the
respective reports; and

e. The Tehsildar failed to discuss
the report so as to appreciate the same and
alleged
corroboration
thereof
through
statement made by the revenue officials
inasmuch as reports were not even proved
as such.

10. In order to appreciate the
contentions, so advanced within the legal
framework of the relevant provisions of the
Revenue Code and the Rules, 2016 the
Court had summoned the original records
and now, therefore, it is necessary to go
through the records to find out as to
whether arguments qua spot inspection and
appreciation thereof and violation of
principles of natural justice were rightfully
made or not.

11. The record of the proceedings
conducted under Section 67 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 before Tehsildar,
Kanth, shows that initially RC form 19 was
issued under the signature of Chairman of
the
Land
Management
Committee
reporting therein that petitioner had made
unauthorized possession upon plot no. 285,
a miljumla number, to the extent of 81
square meters and as per circle rate the total
value of the property comes to 4,67,700/-
and therefore, action be initiated against
encroacher of the land. RC form- 19 issued
on
11.05.2018
is
stated
to
have
accompanied a report of Lekhpal of the
same date. The report of the Lekhpal states
that upon plot no. 285, an area of 0.069
hectares, out of 811 square meters of land,
has been taken in possession by Rishipal
Singh (petitioner).

12. Similarly in respect of plot no.
288 with total area 0.109 hectares, Balram
Singh was claimed to in unauthorized
possession upon 81 square meters of the
land. This report shows that there was some
dispute between private individuals that led
to filing of the first information report on
10.05.2018. The report is accompanied by a
village map and the khatauni. The khatauni
shows that plot no. 285 and 288 are
Navinparti land and recorded in the name
of Gaon Sabha.

13. It is on the basis of this above
reports that the Tehsildar registered a case
on 11.05.2018 itself as case no. 01542 of
2018 issued notices directing for case to be
put up on 25.05.2018. Copy of the notice
on RC Form 20 dated 11.05.2018 is also
available on record and so also objection
filed by the petitioner.

14. From the perusal of ordersheet of
the Tehsildar relating to case no. 01542 of
2018 shows that matter was adjourned for
one reason or the other for a very long time
and it continued to be pending evidence of
Gram Panchayat until 26.06.2019 when the
statement of local area Lekhpal got
recorded. Thereafter, further dates were
12 All. Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
371
fixed
for
petitioner's
evidence
and
ultimately on 6.8.2019 the statements of the
petitioner and his brothers were recorded.
Again,
dates
were
fixed
thereafter
repeatedly. Finally, order was passed on
20.07.2022 directing for payment of
damages and ejectment of the petitioner
from the land in question.

15. In his statement, the local area of
Lekhpal Yogendra Singh before Tehsil
recorded on 29.06.2019 stated that the land
was recorded as Gram Sabha land and since
he found unauthorized possession of Rishipal
Singh S/o Umrao Singh because he was
raising construction of a pukka house, a
cemented linterbase house. It was when he
did not remove his construction that police
registered a case on 10.05.2018 and then he
got the case instituted under Section 67 of the
U.P. Revenue Code. He further stated that in
the revenue map of the village he had shown
with red ink an area of unauthorized
possession of the petitioner. He admitted that
civil suit for injunction had been filed by the
petitioner, which was pending in civil court.
On being cross examined by the petitioner's
counsel he stated that he had measured the
disputed area by visiting the spot and had
found the petitioners to be in unauthorized
possession to the extent of 81 square meters.
He also admitted to have levelled damages as
per valuation of the land to the tune of Rs.
4,61,700/- according to circle rate. He further
stated that construction appeared to him one
year old and denied to have prepared the
report on the dictates of Gram Pradan. No
statement of Gram Pradhan was recorded
even though the land belonged to the Gram
Panchayat and further I find from the record
that the statement of petitioner Rishipal Singh
was recorded on 6.8.2019.

16. In his statement Rishipal, namely
the petitioner claimed that the allegation
that he was in unauthorized possession of
81 square meters falling in plot no. 285,
was absolutely a false statement of fact. He
claimed to have ancestral house which was
earlier a mud house and later on he made a
linter based cemented house and further
claimed that it was only because of the
complaint of the employees of the Tehsil
department that present case had been
instituted. The allegation was also made
that these employees wanted to have
possession of the land from the petitioner.
He claimed that his house was 50 year old
and there was also abadi of other villagers
in the area. During his cross examination,
he claimed also that the entire land was full
of abadi of the village people and there was
no public land as such of the Gaon Sabha to
be taken as a vacant Navinparti land. He
asserted that and Lekhpal was demanding
consideration which he had refused. The
original record after these statements,
contains the order passed by the authority.

17. From the perusal of the entire
record of the case, it clearly transpires that
Lekhpal had prepapred ex parte report as a
matter of fact because neither report
discloses as to who was present on the spot
when the report was prepared and as to
who carried out measurement. There is no
separate map prepared of the land showing
unauthorized construction and instead, a
photocopy of the revenue village map was
annexed alongwith the report with hand
written marking of possession upon such
revenue map. In his statement also Lekhpal
has not disclosed any fact as to when and
under what under circumstances and on the
basis of which particular complaint, he
occasioned an opportunity to conduct
survey. He has not disclosed as to whether
aggrieved party was served with a notice
before any survey was conducted or that he
apprised the concerned party that he was in
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unauthorized possession of the land that
necessitated survey suddenly. He only
stated that there was some dispute which
led to lodging of a first information report.
Lekhpal Yogendra Singh could not explain
away in his statement as to what was the
circle rate and upon which calculation, he
has assessed Rs. 4,61,700/- as valuation of
the property that led to levelling of the
penalty in terms of damages.

18. The question, therefore, in the
light of the argument so advanced by
learned Advocates appearing for the
respective
parties
that
arise
for
consideration is as to what was the
procedure for getting the case registered
under Section 67 of the Revenue Code read
with Rules framed therein, and as to
whether those procedures have been
properly followed in the case in hand or
not. The sanctity of the report after spot
inspection is also an issue.

19. In the above background of facts
that emerged upon perusal of the original
record, it becomes necessary now to first
examine the relevant provisions to test the
procedure laid and the one followed in the
case.

20. Section 67 of the Revenue Code,
2006 for ready reference and appreciation
is reproduced hereunder:

(1) Power to prevent [damage],
misappropriation
and
wrongful
occupation
of
[Gram
Panchayat]
[Property]- Where any property entrusted
or deemed to be entrusted under the
provisions of this Code to a [Gram
Panchayat] or other local authority is
damaged or misappropriated, or where any
[Gram Panchayat] or other authority is
entitled to take possession of any land
under the provisions of this Code and such
land is occupied otherwise than in
accordance with the said provisions, the
Bhumi
Prabandhak
Samiti
or
other
authority or the Lekhpal concerned, as the
case may be, shall inform the [Assistant
Collector]
concerned
in
the
manner
prescribed.

[(2) Where from the information
received
under
sub-section
(1)
or
otherwise,
the
Assistant
Collector
is
satisfied that any property referred to in
sub-section (1) has been damaged or
misappropriated, or any person is in
occupation of any land referred to in that
sub-section
in
contravention
of
the
provisions of this Code, he shall issue
notice to the person concerned to show
cause why compensation for damage,
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
not exceeding the amount specified in the
notice be not recovered from him and why
he should not be evicted from such land.]

(3) If the person to whom a notice
has been issued under sub-section (2) fails
to show cause within the time specified in
the notice or within such extended time as
the [Assistant Collector] may allow in this
behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be
insufficient, the [Assistant Collector] may
direct that such person shall be evicted
from the land, and may, for that purpose,
use or cause to be used such force as may
be necessary, and may direct that the
amount of compensation for damage or
misappropriation of the property or for
wrongful occupation as the case may be, be
recovered from such person as arrears of
land revenue.

(4) If the [Assistant Collector] is
of opinion that the person showing cause is
not guilty of causing the damage or
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
referred to in the notice under sub-section
(2), he shall discharge the notice.
12 All. Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
373

(5) Any person aggrieved by an
order of the [Assistant Collector] under
Sub-section (3) or Sub-Section (4), may
within thirty days from the date of such
order, prefer an appeal to the Collector.

(6)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other provisions of this
Code, and subject to the provisions of this
section every order of the Sub-Divisional
Officer under this section shall, subject to
the provisions of sub-section (5) be final.

(7) The procedure to be followed
in any action taken under this section shall
be such as may be prescribed.

Explanation.- For the purposes of
this section, the word "land" shall include
the trees and buildings standing thereon."

21. A bare reading of aforesaid
provisions as detailed out in various sub
sections of Section 67 show that in the first
instance the property in issue must be the
one entrusted to or deemed to be entrusted
to Gram Panchayat or Local Authority;
then there should be damage caused to such
property; or such property must have been
misappropriated; whether Gram Panchayat
would have been rightfully in possession of
the property under the provisions of this
Code but for the land occupied by a person.
It is in these above circumstances that
either the Land Management Committee or
the Authority or the Lekhpal concerned
shall have duty to inform the Assistant
Collector concerned about the same but in
the manner prescribed.

22. Sub Section 2 of Section 67
provides that Assistant Collector must be
satisfied
regarding
such
damage,
misappropriation
or
unauthorized
occupation of the land by a party in
contravention of the provisions of this
Code, to issue notice to the person
concerned to show cause for the proposed
action for such damage or misappropriation
and illegal occupation. The power may be
exercised
suo
motu
subject
to
the
satisfaction of the authority.

23. Sub Section 3 of 67 provides for
reply to be submitted by the concerned
person to the show cause notice and in the
event reply to the notice is found
insufficient , the Assistant Collector shall
direct for eviction of such person from the
land and further imposition of penalty of
damages as compensation to the State for
such damage/ misappropriation of the
property.

24. Sub section 4 empowers the
Assistant Collector to discharge notice if
the charge is not established.

25. Sub Section 5 of Section 67
provides for appeal against the order passed
by Assistant Collector before the Collector.

26. Subsection 6 of Section 67 makes
the order passed by Assistant Collector to
be final subject to the order to be passed in
appeal.

27. Subsection 7 of Section 67
provides for framing of procedure to be
followed.

28. Explanation to Section 67
provides that the land for the purpose of
this Section would include trees and
building standing thereon.

29. Section 233 of Revenue Code
empowers the State Government to make
Rules by notification for carrying purpose
of the Code. Sub section 2 (xvii) of Section
233 provides for framing of rules qua
duties of any officer or the authority having
jurisdiction under the Code and the
procedure
to
be
followed
by
him.
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Exercising
such
power,
the
State
Government framed U.P Revenue Code
Rules, 2016 (Rules, 2016).

30. Rules 66 and 67 of the Rules,
2016 provide detail procedure to be
exercised and followed under Section 67 of
the Revenue Code, as hereunder:

"66. Information to Assistant
Collector (Section 67). The information to
Assistant Collector required by section
67(1) shall be submitted by the Chairman
or any member or the Secretary of the
Land Management Committee, or any
officer of the Local Authority concerned
in R.C. Form-19.

67. Further inquiry by Assistant
Collector (Section 67) (1) On receipt of the
information under rule 66, or on facts
otherwise coming to his knowledge, the
Assistant
Collector
may
make
such
inquiry as he deems proper and may
obtain further information regarding the
following points:-

(a) full description of damage or
misappropriation caused or the wrongful
occupation made with details of village,
plot number, area, boundary, property
damaged or misappropriated and market
value thereof;

(b) full address along with
parentage of the person responsible for
such
damage,
misappropriation
or
wrongful occupation;

(c)
period
of
wrongful
occupation, damage or misappropriation
and class of soil of the plots involved;

(d)
value
of
the
property
damaged or misappropriated calculated at
the circle rate fixed by the Collector and
the amount sought to be recovered as
damages.

(2) The Assistant Collector shall
thereafter proceed to take action under
section 67(2) and for that purpose issue a
notice to the person concerned in R.C.
Form-20 to show cause as to why
compensation
for
damage,
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
not exceeding the amount specified in the
notice be not recovered from him and why
he should not be evicted from such land.

(3) If the notice referred to in
section 67(2) remains uncomplied with or if
the cause shown by the person concerned is
found to be insufficient, the Assistant
Collector may direct by order that-

(a) such person be evicted by
using such force as may be necessary; or

(b) the amount of compensation
for
damage
or
wrongful
occupation
ordered by the Assistant Collector, if not
paid in specified time, may be recovered as
arrears of land revenue, including the
amount of expenses referred to in sub-rule
(3).

(4) The amount of damages
sought to be recovered and the expenses of
execution of the order shall be specified in
such notice, which shall be determined in
the following manner:-

(a) In the case of damage or
misappropriation, the amount of damages
shall be assessed at the prevailing market
rate.

(b) In the case of unauthorized
occupation of any land, the amount of
damages shall be the amount equal to the
five percent of the market value of the land
calculated at the circle rate fixed by the
Collector for each year of unauthorized
occupation.

(c) The expenses of execution of
the order shall be assessed on the basis of
one day's pay and allowances payable to
the staff deputed.

(5) If the person wrongfully
occupying the land has done cultivation
therein, he may be allowed to retain
12 All. Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
375
possession thereof until he has harvested
the crops subject to the payment by him of
the amount equal to the five percent of the
market value of the land calculated as per
the circle rate which shall be credited to
the Consolidated Gaon Fund or the Fund
of the local authority other than the Gram
Panchayat as the case may be. If the person
concerned does not make the payment of
the aforesaid amount within the period
specified in the notice in R.C. 40 Form-20,
the possession of the land shall be
delivered
to
the
Land
Management
Committee or the local authority, as the
case may be, together with the crop:

Provided that where such person
again wrongfully occupies the same land
or any other land within the jurisdiction of
the Gram Panchayat or the local authority
as the case may be, he shall be evicted
therefrom forthwith and possession of the
land vacant or together with the crop
thereon shall be delivered to the Land
Management Committee or the local
authority as the case may be.

(6) The Assistant Collector shall
make an endeavour to conclude the
proceeding under section 67 of the Code
within the period of ninety days from the
date of issuance of the show cause notice
and if the proceeding is not concluded
within such period the reasons for the same
shall be recorded.

(7) Nothing in sub-rule (5) shall
debar the Land Management Committee
or the local authority as the case may be
from
prosecuting
the
person
who
encroaches upon the same land second
time in spite of having been evicted under
the Code or the rules, under section 447 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(8) There shall be maintained in
the office of each Collector a register in
R.C. Form-21 showing details of the
amount ordered to be realized on account
of damages and compensation awarded in
proceedings under section 67.

(9) A similar register shall also
be maintained by each tahsildar showing
realization of damages and compensation
awarded in such proceeding. The entries
made in the register maintained at tahsil
shall be compared with the register
maintained by the Collector to ensure
accuracy of the entries made therein. 41

(10) A progress report showing
realization of damages and compensation
awarded in proceedings under section 67
shall be sent to Board of Revenue, U.P.,
Lucknow by the fifteenth day of April and
October every year. The Board after
consolidating the report so received from
the
districts
shall
send
it
to
the
Government.

(11) Nothing in rules 66 and 67
shall debar any person from establishment
of his right, title or interest in a court of
competent jurisdiction in accordance with
the law for the time being in force in
respect of any matter for which any order
has been made under section 67 of the
Code."

(emphasis added)

31. Rule 66 as quoted above provides
for an information to the Assistant
Collector either by Chairman or any
Member or the Secretary of the Land
Management Committee or any officer of
the Revenue Authority concerned in RC
Form 19. RC Form 19 is a printed format
appended to the Rules, 2016 which is to be
filled in by Chairman/ Member of the
Secretary
of
the
Land
Management
Committee or any other Member of the
Gram Panchayat or any Officer of the
Local Authority concerned.

32. What is interesting to note is that
Rule provides for an information either by
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Chairman or Member or the Secretary
of the Land Management Committee or any
officer of the Local Authority, so also RC
Form 19 provides for a form to be filled in
by that very person who informs.

33. The question is whether RC Form 19
can be filled in by local area Lekhpal to
institute the proceeding under Section 67 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 shall be dealt
with a little later in the judgment. A reading of
Subrules of Rule 67 further discloses that
besides the information to be furnished under
Rule 66, if otherwise it comes to the
knowledge of the Assistant Collector that there
is misappropriation, damage or unauthorized
occupation of the public land or property, the
Assistant Collector may make such enquiry as
he deems proper and may further ask for
report regarding points innumerated in clauses
a,b,c, d. So while action is taken suo motu vide
Section 67(2), the information that has to be
gathered for purposes of RC Form 19, must be
to obtained by the Authority before issuing a
show cause notice.

34. Subrule (1) of Rule 67 vide its
various clauses require certain informations
in detail. Clause (a) requires description of
damage,
misappropriation
or
wrongful
occupation, details of village, plot number,
area, boundary of property damaged or
misappropriated and market value thereof.
Clause- (b) requires in detail address and
details of the person who is guilty of
wrongful
occupation/
damage/
misappropriation.
Clause-
(c)
requires
information
regarding
period
wrongful
occupation/damage and class of soil of the
plot in question and Clause-(d) requires
information regarding rate of the property
damaged or misappropriated that needed to
be calculated at the circle rate fixed by the
Collector/ District Magistrate concerned and
the amount that is to be recovered.

35. Thus, the above clauses of rule
67(1) provide for the Assistant Collector/
Tehsildar to hold a comprehensive detailed
enquiry for the purposes of having a prima
facie satisfaction to issue show cause to the
person concerned in RC Form 20 under
subrule (2) of Rule 67.

36. Subrule (3) of Rule, 67 provides
for consequential action in the event show
cause remained unreplied or reply was
found to be unsatisfactorily. Subrule (4) of
Rule 67 provides for determination of
damage to be recovered and expanses for
execution of the order. Subrule 4(a)
provides that damage or misappropriation
amount shall be assessed at the prevailing
market rate. Subrule 4(b) provides that
amount of damage shall be an amount
equal to five per cent of the market value of
the land, calculated at the circle rate fixed
by the Collector for each year of the
unauthorized occupation and Subrule 4 (c)
provides for assessment of expanses on the
basis one day's pay and allowances payable
to staff deputed. Subrule-(5) provides for
retention of possession by unauthorized
occupant, if there was some crop standing
until it is harvested. However, such
unauthorized occupant was required to pay
damages at the rate of five per cent of the
market value of the land, calculated as per
circle rate and in the event amount is not
deposited within specified time as per
notice on RC Form 20, the possession of
the land together with the crop would be
taken forcibly and be handed over to the
Land Management Committee or the Local
Authority as the case may be.

37. Proviso to Subrule (5) further
authorizes the authority to take possession
back of the vacant land/ any other land and/
or together with the crop if reoccupied after
possession of such land was taken under
12 All. Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
377
subsection 67 and the rules, forcibly.
Subrule (6) of Rule 67 provides that
Assistant Collector must endeavour to
conclude proceedings within 90 days from
the date of issuance of show cause notice.
Subrule 7 of Section 67 further provides for
role of the Land Management Committee
to prosecute such encroachers of the land if
second time inspite of earlier being evicted
have re-entered the land, by initiating
proceedings under Section 447 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. Subrule (8) of
Rule 67 provides for the Collector to
maintain a register regarding amount of
damages
and
compensation
awarded.
Subrrule (9) of 67 provides also for
Tehsildar to maintain such register so that
from time to time entries made in the
register maintained at Tehsil and that at the
District Head- quarter may be compared
with and matched to ensure accuracy.
Subrule (10) of Rule 67 provides for
progress report to be sent to Board of
Revenue U.P. Lucknow about damages and
compensation awarded and realization
made thereof under Section 67 of the
Revenue Code and the Board has further
been fastened with an obligation to send
such report to the State Government.
Subrule (11) of Rule 67 further provides
that inspite of a proceeding is drawn under
Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code and
orders are passed finally, the aggrieved
party can claim and get settled his right,
title or interest in respect of the property in
question
in
a
Court
of
competent
jurisdiction in accordance with law.

38. Thus while various claims of Rule
67(1) provide for a detailed procedure to be
followed before issuance of show cause
notice under Section 67(2), the other
subrules rlate to conduct of proceedings
and conclusion thereof within a reasonable
time i.e. 90 days. Subrules also confer
ample power upon the Authority to
dislodge a person forcibly if he dishonours
the command and even after being
removed, reoccupies the public land.

39. Looking to the object of provision
and measures meant to be adopted and
safeguards provided by means of strict rule
of investigation into the charges first before
action, the participation of the person
charged cannot be ruled out even at the
stage of spot memo being prepared during
preliminary investigation.

40. Rule 67 is preceded by Rule 66
that provides for an information to be
furnished by certain authorities of the Gram
Panchayat or the Local Authority on a
printed format prescribed as RC Form 19.
The question now is as to RC Form 19 is to
be filled in merely sitting in office by
looking to the revenue records or has to be
preceded by a spot enquiry by such officer.
No one would doubt, since land belong to
the Gram Panchyat or the Local Authority,
it is a primary duty of the Gram Pradhan
concerned or the the local authority to
ensure that nobody occupies land or
property unauthorizedly.

41.

Section
67
saves
those
possessions that are in accordance with
provisions of the code and further provides
that Lekhpal concerned may inform the
Assistant Collector about such damage,
misappropriation
or
unauthorized
possession of respective land or property to
the Assistant Collector 1st Class in the
manner prescribed.

42. RC Form-19 is a part of Rule 66
being appendix to Rules 2016 and though it
is a printed format, but it prescribes vide
column 5 about damage, misappropriation
or unauthorized occupation; vide column 6,
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the period of unauthorized occupation; vide
column 7, it provides for calculation of
damages to be made at the circle rate; and
then ultimate calculated damages, vide
column 8. All this shows that informant has
to hold a preliminary enquiry so as to make
out a prima facie case for intervention and
consequential action by the authority under
Section 67 of the U.P. Rule and Revenue
Code, 2006 read with Rule 2016. To the
question how the informant would form a
prima facie view, the answer would be that
he would be visiting spot at a date with a
prior notice to the person concerned to
enquire from him about unauthorized
occupancy to ensure such occupation is
identifiable and then to assess damage
caused or misappropriation of the property
in question. It is he who would prepare a
visual sketch map/naksa nazri on being
satisfied prima faice qua unauthorized
occupation/damage/ misappropriation of
the Gram Panchayat/ Local Authority
property, of course, after comparing with
the original revenue records. He would get
report of the circle rate then will calculate it
accordingly
as
per
his
assessment
considering
extent
of
damage
and
misappropriation. Thus, this is how a
preliminary report on form RC 19 is to be
filled up. All this exercise must be reduced
in a form of preliminary report to be
appended with RC Form 19 so as to
corroborate the entries made on the printed
format. This would be necessary to form a
view for the Assistant Collector that report
submitted as per Rule- 66 prima facie holds
merit to issue a show cause notice on RC
Form-20 per Rule 1(a)(b)(c)(d) of Rule, 67.

43. The words expression "where
from information received under subsection
(1) or otherwise, Assistant Collector is
satisfied that any property referred to in
subsection (1) has been damaged or
misappropriated or any person is in
occupation of any land referred to in that
sub section in contravention of the
provisions of this Code" vide sub section 2
of Section 67 means a satisfaction to be
recorded by the Assistant Collector in his
order before he issues notice under subrule
2 of Rule 67. Natural corollary would be
that subrule 1 of Rule 67 that precedes
subrule 2 should be first followed in its
letter and spirit. This is the reason why
Rule 66 talks of information which I have
in forgoing paragraph referred to as
preliminary report. So the procedure as
may be held to be followed before issuance
of notice under sub-rule 2 upon RC form
20, to be that of proper and detailed enquriy
.

44.