# Shahban & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 528
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-25
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 704 of 2026
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shahban-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54772
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

_Characters 0–38,676 of 40,237. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=38676 for what follows._

528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
42. The only ground pressed for dropping the proceedings under Section 7-A of the RBO Act is that
in the order dated 21.02.2024, this Court had directed for conclusion of proceedings under Section 10 only
and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 7-A cannot be taken against the opposite party no.4. I am
unable to accept this ground for dropping the proceedings under Section 7-A, firstly, on the ground that the
petitioner had not surrendered or foregone her claim for action under Section 7-A of the Act against the
opposite party no.4. The petitioner had sought a direction for conclusion of proceedings initiated by a notice
dated 02.01.2024. The notice dated 02.01.2024 is not available on the record and it cannot be ascertained that
the said notice did not make a mention of Section 7-A of the Act. Therefore, the doctrine of election does not
apply to the present case. Secondly, the order dated 21.02.2024 does not record that this court had prohibited
action under Section 7-A of the RBO Act or had condoned the fraud played by the opposite party no. 4, if
any, while submitting the applications for sanction of the building plans. Therefore, the order dated
21.02.2024 does not amount to a direction for closure of proceedings against the opposite party no.4 under
Section 7-A of the Act. Thirdly, even if the petitioner has no right to demand initiation of proceedings under
Section 7-A of the RBO Act against the opposite party no. 4, the initiation of such proceedings is not
dependent upon the petitioner's right to claim initiation of the proceedings.

43. When the inquiry report dated 06.02.2024 prima facie indicates that the sanction for building has
been obtained by making a false statement and misrepresentation regarding boundaries of the land, which
amounts to playing a fraud upon the authority, proceedings under Section 7-A of the RBO Act have to be
initiated irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner has a right to press for initiation of the proceedings or
not. Therefore, the order dropping proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act is unsustainable in law and the
same is liable to be set aside.

44. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The office memorandum dated
20.01.2026, issued by the Prescribed Authority, Regulated Area/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar,
Pratapgarh, canceling the notice under Section 7-A of the RBO Act, 1958 against the opposite party no.4 and
stating that the proceedings under Section 10 of RBO Act only will continue against her, is quashed. The
opposite party no. 2/Prescribed Authority is directed to conclude the proceedings instituted against the
opposite party no. 4 under Section 7-A of the RBO Act, as also the proceedings under Section 10 of the RBO
Act, expeditiously, in accordance of the law.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 528
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 704 of 2026

Shahban & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
3 All. Shahban & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
529
The petitioners challenged eviction and penalty orders passed by the Tehsildar for allegedly encroaching on
Gram Sabha land recorded as "Khalihan" to build a mosque in Village Asti, Lucknow.

Headnotes
A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 226-U.P. Revenue Code,2006-Section 67-U.P. Revenue
Code Rules,2016-Rules 66 and 67-Summary proceedings-Eviction and damages-Encroachment
on Gram Sabha land-Mosque constructed on land recorded as "Khalihan"-Proceedings under
section 67 are summary in nature and are to be decided primarily on affidavits, with crossexamination of witnesses being discretionary and not mandatory-Where authorities have
followed prescribed procedure, including receipt of information in Form-19, issuance of notice in
Form 20, grant of opportunity to file objections, and consideration thereof, the proceedings
cannot be said to be vitiated on the ground of non-recording of statements or absence of crossexamination-Guidelines laid down in Rishipal singh Vs. State of U.P. suggesting detailed
procedure including examination and cross-examination are not binding unless adopted by the
State through amendment of rules and cannot override existing statutory framework-
Petitioners failed to establish any right, title or interest over land recorded as "Khalihan"
belonging to Gram Sabha, hence eviction order upheld-Writ petition dismissed.(Para 25 to 31)
Held
The court held that the procedural guidelines suggested by a coordinate Bench in Rishipal Singh vs. State of
U.P., which mandate a regular trial-like procedure including the cross-examination of revenue officials, are not
enforceable as a matter of right until they are formally adopted by the State Government through an
amendment to the U.P. Revenue Code Rules,2016. Finding of unauthorized occupation on Gram Sabha land
upheld. Order of imposition of penalty set aside. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Vishaka & Ors Vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors (1997) 6 SCC 241-referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950, U.P. Revenue Code 2006, U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

List of Keywords
Section 67(Eviction and damages), Summary proceedings, U.P. Revenue Code Rules,2016, Encroachment on
Gram Sabha land, Khalihan, RC Form 19, RC Form 20, Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P., Section 225-A, Cross
examination of Revenue officials, Imposition of Penalty.

Case Arising from
Civil jurisdiction: WRIT-C No.- 704 of 2026
Shahban & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko & Ors
From the judgment and order dated 25.03.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s)
 Abdul Haleem, Ashid Ali, Mohammad Danish, Mohammad Kashif, Mohd. Mansoor, Mohd. Shameem Khan
Advs. for Respondent(s)
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Mansoor, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Yogesh Kumar
Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, whereby order is for eviction and imposition of penalty have been passed against the
petitioner for having illegally encroached and built a mosque on land situated at Gata No. 648, area
0.300Hec., which is recorded as "Khalihan" in the revenue records and is consequently a land
belonging to the Gram Sabha.

3. The proceedings were initiated by the issuance of a notice in RC form 19 requiring the
petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from land situated at Gata No. 648,
situated at Village Asti, Pargana Mohana, Tehsil - Bakshi-Ka-Talab, District - Lucknow. In
pursuance of the notice, the petitioners had appeared before the Tehsildar on 11/12/2024 and filed
their objections stating that they had not constructed a mosque on the Gram Sabha land, and the
existing mosque had been constructed 60 years before to facilitate the persons following Islam and
further prayed for setting aside the notice.

4. The Tehsildar after considering the objections raised by the petitioners rejected the same
holding that the land on which the mosque was existing at Gata No. 648 is recorded as "Khalihan"
and therefore is a land owned by the Gram Sabha, and the petitioner does not have any right
interest or title in the disputed land and therefore passed orders for eviction and imposition of
penalty to the tune of Rs.36,000/-.

5. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 28/02/2025, preferred an appeal
before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Lucknow. The Additional District Magistrate
after considering the entire material on record was of the view that the petitioner has not been able
to demonstrate that he has any right, interest or title in the disputed property as the same was
undisputedly recorded as Gram Sabha land and accordingly did not find any reason for interfering
with the order dated 28/02/2025 passed by the Tehsildar and accordingly rejected the appeal by
means of the order dated 31/10/2025.

6. Thereafter, the instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the validity of the
order dated 28/02/2025, as well as the appellate order dated 31/10/2025.

7. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is a clear violation of the
procedure prescribed under law by the Tehsildar since due opportunity of hearing was denied to the
petitioner and the statement of the Lekhpal was never recorded and neither was any evidence led by
the State, nor were the petitioners permitted to cross examine any of the witnesses for the State and
hence prayed for setting aside of the orders of impugned in the writ petition.

8. In support of the submission, learned counsel, the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh vs State of U.P &
Others, Writ C No. 6658 of 2022. It was vehemently contended that the procedure to be
followed by the authorities while exercising power under Section 67 of the U.P Revenue Code has
been clearly laid down by this Court in paragraphs 74 and 75 of the aforesaid judgment, which read
as follows:-
3 All. Shahban & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
531
 "74. Thus, in my view, the guidelines be adopted as procedure to be applied to
proceedings under Sections 67,67A and26of the U.P. Revenue Code. It is all aimed at ensuring
transparency in the procedure, judiciousness in approach by the authorities and to thwart every
complaint made with ulterior and oblique motive to dislodge a long settled possession and causing
of unnecessary harassment to an innocent villager:

 (i) In case of complaint made on RC From 19, the official making it shall ensure that
proper survey is done in the light of observations made in this judgment; the land, occupation of
which has stood identified to be unauthorized is in exact measurement and so also shown in the
survey map prepared on scale, as per the Land Revenue Survey Regulations, 1978; the exact
assessment of damages on the basis of circle rate with details of calculation made on that basis.

 (ii) In a case of suo motu action, before issuing RC Form 20, the authority will ensure
that proper report upon RC Form 19 is submitted as per para (i) above on parameters of subrule 1
Rule 67.

 (iii) RC Form 20 must be accompanied by a copy of report and spot survey submitted
alongwith RC Form 19 to the person against whom proceedings have been instituted, or even
otherwise submitted in case of suo motu action vide para (ii) above.

 (iv) Upon reply being filed to the notice, if authority finds that spot survey/explanation
report is not satisfactory, it may order for a fresh spot report to be prepared in presence of the
party aggrieved.

 (v) In the event, objection includes a plea of statutory protection/ benefit under Section
67-A, the authority should invite the objection from the Gaon Sabha, and will decide the same
alongwith the matter under Section 67, without requiring aggrieved party to move separate
application under Section 67-A.

 (vi) If the report is admitted on record, may be in case no objection is filed, the authority
must ensure presence of the person preparing the report before it, to prove the report by his
statement, with a right to aggrieved party to cross question him.

 (vii) The authority must endeavour to decide the case within time framed provided under
the relevant Act and the Rules and should desist from granting adjournment to the parties in a
routine manner.

 (viii) In case of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, preferred/
filed within the time prescribed alongwith interim relief application, the interim relief application
as far as possible should be decided within two weeks' time with prior notice to other side and
where plea of settlement under Section 67-A has been taken before Assistant Collector-1st Class,
and damages to the tune of 25 % at-least of the total damages are paid and an affidavit of
undertaking is filed for not raising any further construction upon the land in question, the
authorities including civil administration should avoid taking any coercive measure pursuant to the
order appealed against until the disposal of interim relief application. The Appellate authority may
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also consider granting interim relief on the very first day of filing of appeal with stay application if
above conditions are fulfilled by the appellant.

 (ix) The appellate authority should as far as possible decide the appeal within a period of
two months of its presentation.

 75. India lives largely in villages and still by and large is an agregarian economy. The
State of Uttar Pradesh is no exception. Accordingly, I may observe here that rules of procedure
deserve to be suitably amended by the State Government incorporating above guidelines for
leaving no scope for any arbitrariness that is seen largely as influencing the decision making
process by the authority, may be for local village politics."

9. Sri Mohammed Mansoor, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners,
contended that in paragraph 51 of the said judgment, in unequivocal terms, it has been observed
that the conclusion can be reached by the Assistant Collector about the illegal encroachments only
after examination of witnesses of the States side and also examination of witnesses produced by
the aggrieved person. In paragraph 51, the justification for the said procedure was explained where
it was observed that if proper procedure is followed by appreciating report in light of examination
of witnesses and cross-examination and proper appreciation of evidence that may be led by the
respective parties vis-a vis spot inspection report, the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st
Class under sub-Rule 6 of Rule 67 read with Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code would be an
order where one can say that justice is not only been done but has been seen to have been done.

10. It was submitted that the examination of witnesses is an essential feature of proceedings
under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, and wherever the revenue officials are not examined
or not permitted to be cross-examined, or the person under notice is not permitted to lead evidence,
it will be assumed that the due procedure has not been followed and the entire proceedings are
liable to be quashed. In the present case, it was submitted that only after submitting their reply, the
proceedings were concluded and order was passed under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code
declaring the petitioners to be in illegal occupation of the Gram Sabha land, and such proceedings
are in clear violation of the judgment of this court in the case of Rishipal Singh (supra) and
therefore liable to be quashed.

11. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the
procedure prescribed under Rules 66 and 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules has been followed. It
was further submitted that proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code are summary
proceedings, and further that according to Section 225-A of the U.P Revenue Code clearly provides
that all questions arising for determination in any summary proceedings before the Court, shall be
decided upon affidavits in the prescribed manner and only where the revenue Court or revenue
officer is satisfied that cross-examination of any witness who has filed affidavit is necessary, shall
direct production of witness for such cross-examination. It was submitted that it is not mandatory
for the Revenue officials to record the statement in such proceedings, and also to be crossexamined. In appropriate cases, the Assistant Collector, in his discretion, may permit such
examination and cross-examination, but that will depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case.
3 All. Shahban & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
533
12. It was further submitted that in the case of Rishipal Singh (supra) this court had only
proposed the procedure which ought to be followed in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P
Revenue Code and therefore as clearly stated in paragraph 74 of the said judgment that the
guidelines be adopted as procedure to be applied to the proceedings under Section 67, 67A and
26 of the U.P Revenue Code. Much emphasis was laid on the word adopted to canvass their
submission that the existing rules will have to be amended before the procedure as stated in the said
judgment could be applied universally in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P Revenue Code,
and as till date the rules have not been amended, the impugned orders cannot be tested on the anvil
of procedure laid down in the judgment of Rishipal Singh (supra). Lastly, it was submitted that
where the statute itself prescribes summary proceedings in relation to Section 67 of the U.P
Revenue Code, then, without quashing the existing provisions, a new set of rules prescribing
regular proceedings cannot be prescribed, which are totally contrary to the prescription as per the
revenue code rules, by the court, which would amount to legislation, which is impermissible.

13. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. The procedure
which is to be followed for initiating and continuing an action under Section 67 of the U.P.
Revenue Code has been provided in Rules 66 and 67 of the U.P Revenue Code Rules. It would be
beneficial to quote the rules to find out about the nature of the proceedings and the requirements of
law in this regard:-

 "66. 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. Further inquiry by Assistant Collector
(Section 67) 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.
534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (3) If the notice referred to in section 67(2) remains uncomplied with or if the cause
shown by the person 39 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 landthe 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 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.
3 All. Shahban & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
535
 (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."

14. The procedure as laid down for initiation of the proceedings under Section 67 of the
Revenue Code, is based on information coming to the knowledge of the Assistant Collector about
the encroachment on the Gaon Sabha land, who thereafter can proceed to conduct enquiry and
obtain further information relating to the particular area of the land on which the encroachment has
been made, the plot number, area boundary of the property and the market value. After receiving
the entire details of the encroachment, a notice is required to be issued in RC Form 20 to the person
who is alleged to have encroached upon the Gram Sabha land. The person so put under notice has a
right to respond to the notice and file his objections, and in case he does not respond to the notice
or his response is found to be insufficient or unsatisfactory, then orders can be passed for eviction
from the said land, and also imposition of compensation for the damages for wrongful occupation.

15. Once the entire material as provided for under Section 67 (1) of the Rules has been
obtained by the Assistant Collector, he has to issue notice in RC Form 20 to the person who is
alleged to have occupied the Gram Sabha land. The said noticee has a right to respond and deny the
allegations levelled against him. On consideration of the reply, the Assistant Collector is also
mandated to return a finding that his reply is found to be insufficient, only then can he pass orders
for eviction and levy damages for wrongful occupation.

16. It is at the stage of consideration of the reply of the concerned person, opportunity of
hearing has to be provided, and pursuant to the hearing and giving full opportunity to rebut the
allegations in the notice, a reasoned and speaking order has to be passed by the Assistant Collector,
clearly demonstrating whether the concerned person has been able to demonstrate any right,
interest or title in the disputed property, and also the fact is to whether the disputed land is recorded
in the name of Gram Sabha.

17. With regard to the nature of proceedings, it is noticed that as per Section 225-A of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it is provided that the proceedings will be summary in nature. Section
225-A, reads as follows:-

 "225-A Determination of questions in summary proceeding.-Notwithstanding anything
contained in other provisions of this Code, all the questions arising for determination in any
summary proceeding under this Code shall be decided upon affidavits, in the manner prescribed:
Provided that if Revenue Court or Revenue Officer is satisfied that the cross examination of any
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
witness, who has filed affidavit, is necessary, it or he may direct to produce the witness for such
cross examination."

18. Rule 192 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules provides that all questions arising for the
determination in any summary proceedings under the Code shall be decided upon affidavits, and
sub-rule (2) declares that the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P Revenue Code are to be
treated as summary proceedings.

19. Accordingly, as per the statutory scheme under Section 67 of the Revenue Code,
providing for action to be taken against damage, misappropriation and wrongful occupation of
Gram Sabha property, the Assistant Collector on receiving such information and after satisfying
himself about the damage, misappropriation and wrongful damage to the Gram Sabha property
shall issue a notice in Form 20 giving full information as provided therein. The person to whom the
notice has been issued would, thereafter, have a full opportunity to submit his defence. The
Assistant Collector, at this stage, can file all the material on affidavit in support of his contentions.
As per the proviso to Section 225 A of the U.P Revenue Code, he may be permitted to crossexamine any witness who has filed an affidavit.

20. In the instant case, information in the Form 19 was submitted by the Land Management
Committee to the Assistant Collector stating that the petitioners have encroached upon the land
situated at Gata No. 648 on an area of 0.300 hectares in Village - Asti, Pargana Mohana, Tehsil -
Bakshi Ka Talab, District - Lucknow, for a period of nearly 20 years. A map relating to the
encroachment was also annexed. On the basis of information received by the Assistant Collector,
notice in the form 20 was issued to the petitioners on 21/10/2024, asking them to submit their reply
by 11/11/2024. The petitioners submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 11/12/2024. It was
denied that the petitioners had encroached upon any land belonging to the Gram Sabha, and the
disputed mosque was built by the members of the Muslim community about 60 years back. It was
stated that they were not aware of facts relating to the construction of the said Mosque, and stated
that there is no encroachment on Gata No. 648, area 0.300 Hec. The petitioners further denied that
they were part of the management of the Mosque or the manager/Mutwalee of the said Mosque, but
only visited the Mosque for prayers.

21. The Tehsildar duly considered the reply submitted by the petitioners and found that the
land situated at Gata No. 648 situated at Gram - Asti, Pargana Mohana, Tehsil - Bakshi Ka
Talab, District - Lucknow was recorded as a Khalihan in the revenue records and was accordingly a
land belonging to the Gram Sabha over which the mosque had been illegally constructed and
accordingly passed orders for eviction and imposition of penalty by means of the order dated
28/02/2025.

22. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28/02/2025, the petitioners had preferred an appeal
before the Collector, Lucknow. The main ground of challenge was that the procedure adopted by
the Tehsildar in deciding the objections of the petitioners, where the statement of the Lekhpal was
not recorded, nor was he summoned, and the petitioners were not given an opportunity to crossexamine him. The Collector by means of this order dated 31/10/2025 rejected the appeal after
recording that neither before the trial Court nor before the appellate Court, it has been stated that
3 All. Shahban & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
537
the petitioners had any right, interest or title over the said property which was recorded as a
Khalihan and therefore a land belonging to Gram Sabha and therefore, did not find any merit in the
appeal and accordingly dismissed the same.

23. The learned counsel of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that in the aforesaid
circumstances the proceedings before the Tehsildar were clearly illegal and arbitrary in as much as
the statement of the Lekhpal was never recorded and nor were the petitioners given any opportunity
to cross-examine him as provided for in the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Rishipal (supra) and therefore submitted that the petition deserve to be allowed, and the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside and remand the matter back for adjudication afresh after
following the procedure as stated by this Court.

24. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The arguments of the
petitioner have centered around the procedure to be followed in proceedings under Section 67 of
the Revenue Code. The existing procedure as contained in Rules 66 and 67 of the U.P Revenue
Code Rules prescribes a summary procedure, while according to the petitioner, this Court, in the
case of Rishipal, has prescribed a detailed regular procedure to be followed, which includes the
leading of oral evidence and cross-examination of witnesses.

25. When tested on the anvil of the existing provisions contained in Rules 66 and 67 of the
U.P. Revenue Court Rules we find that the enquiry was conducted by the revenue officials and they
had submitted their report in Form 19, providing all the necessary ingredients regarding the
location of the legal encroachment pursuant to which notice was given to the petitioners in Form
20, providing therein the extent of encroachment, area of encroachment etc. and asking the
petitioners to submit their reply. The reply was furnished to the Assistant Collector, who did not
find that there was any justification given by the petitioners for occupation of the land at Gata No.
648, situated at Village - Asti, Pargana Mohana, Tehsil - Bakshi Ka Talab, District - Lucknow,
which was recorded as a Khalihan and hence a Gram Sabha land. As the petitioners were
unable to demonstrate that they had any right, title, or interest in the said land, the Assistant
Collector held that the reply was unsatisfactory and passed orders for eviction and imposition of a
penalty. Accordingly, from the perusal of the aforesaid material, it is evident that the respondents
have followed the Rules prescribed under Rule 66 and 67 of the Revenue Code Rules, and it cannot
be said that the impugned order was passed in violation of the said Rules. With regard to the
imposition of penalty, this Court is of the view that there was no material to link the petitioners to
either construction or occupation of the Mosque the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly
set aside.

26. The 2nd limb of the argument of the petitioners, which this Court proceed to examine,
is with regard to the violation of the directions issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Rishipal (supra). In paragraph 50 of the said judgment, we find that the Court has provided
for examination and cross-examination of the witnesses for the State and leading of evidence by the
revenue authorities who had submitted the report with regard to the encroachment after spot
inspection. In paragraph 74 of Rishipal (supra), where the directions/guidelines have been issued
with regard to the procedure to be adopted under Sections 67, 67 A and 26 of the U.P Revenue
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code, we find that in Clause (vi) of para 74 of the judgment of Rishipal (supra), it is observed as
under:-

 "(vi) if the report is admitted on record, maybe in case no objection is filed, the authority
will ensure the presence of the person preparing the report before it, to prove the report by
statement, with a right to the aggrieved party to cross-examine him ."

27. Therefore, after carefully examining the aforesaid directions contained in para 74 of the
said
judgment,
this
Court
finds
that
the
remaining
part
of
the
directions
are
clarificatory/amplification of the provisions already contained in Rule 66 and 67 of the Revenue
Code Rules but the major departure from the prescribed rules has been provided in Clause (vi) of
paragraph 74 of the Rishipal (supra) according to which it would be mandatory for the authority to
examine the person who submitted the report and to permit the said authority to be cross-examined.
The issue is whether any order issued in violation of Clause (vi) of para 74 of Rishipal (supra) can
be set aside without there being an amendment in the appropriate rules by the State Government?

28. It is trite to say that in the present circumstances, the Legislature has already framed
rules which are provided for in Rules 66 and 67 of the Revenue Code Rules; it is not a case where
there is any absence of any prescription with regard to the procedure to be followed in proceedings
under Section 67 of the U.P Revenue Code enabling the Court to step in to fill the vacuum. The
Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors,1997 (6) SCC 241
had proceeded to frame guidelines with regard to the protection of women from sexual harassment
at the workplace wherein they had clearly observed that in absence of domestic law occupying the
field, to formulate effective measures to check evil of sexual harassment of working women at all
workplaces. The situation before the Supreme Court can be clearly distinguished from the facts of
the present case, where specific, valid, and enforceable rules exist; therefore, there was no occasion
to exercise the extraordinary powers of formulating enforceable guidelines unless and until the
existing rules are declared to be ultra vires.

29. We further take notice of the fact that this Court in the case of Rishipal (supra), has
not discussed the inadequacy or any infirmity with the existing procedure prescribed in the U.P
Revenue Code Rules, but suggested a fresh mechanism in itself and termed it as guidelines to
be adopted as procedure under Section 67, 67A and 26 of the U.P Revenue Code. Once the Court
itself has issued directions for the adoption of the said guidelines/rules by the State of U.P.,
then such adoption is necessary, and without such adoption, the guidelines framed by this Court
cannot be implemented. Apart from the above, we find that in case the guidelines in the case of
Rishipal (Supra) are adopted and implemented, then the procedure, which hitherto was a summary
procedure, would be converted in regular procedure providing for determination only after parties
are given due opportunity to adduce evidence. It is for the aforesaid reason that we do not find that
there was any intention to make the guidelines enforceable as such prior to adoption by the State,
and necessary amendments in the rules, and therefore, do not have any hesitation in holding that
proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P Revenue Code would have to be judged on the anvil of the
existing procedure, till such time as the guidelines framed in the case of Rishipal (supra) are
adopted by the state by amending the U.P Revenue Code Rules.
3 All. Shri Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs. P.O. Central Gov. Industrial Cum Labour Lko & Ors.
539
30. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the
procedure which is prescribed under Rule 66 and 67 of the Revenue Code Rules has been followed
in the present case, while it is not mandatory to follow the guidelines issued in the case of Rishipal
(supra), unless and until the same are adopted by the State of U.P.

31. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 539
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 1337 of 2026

Shri Radhey Shyam Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
P.O. Central Gov. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Lko & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether an industrial dispute raised after an inordinate delay of about 25 years from the date of
termination of service is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches despite absence
of any prescribed period of limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
HEADNOTE
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.10 - Industrial dispute raised after about 25 years from
termination - No statutory limitation prescribed - Claim rejected by Tribunal - Challenge in writ
jurisdiction - Justification: