# Sri Raju v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 481 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-01-09 - **Case number:** Writ-C No. 36353 of 2019 - **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-raju-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46178 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 67 & 67A - Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, provides that in case a house exists over land referred to in Section 63 of the Code, having been built prior to November 29, 2012, the housing site can be settled with its owner on such terms and conditions as may be specified. Held - Merely because a person lower in order of preference has encroached upon Gaon Sabha land, he cannot and should not be granted the benefit of Section 67A unless and until he is in a position to establish categorically that a person higher in preference is not available in the village. In the instant case, Petitioners in their applications u/s 67A, nowhere have stated that no agricultural labourers or village artisans belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe are residing in village, which was necessarily required to be pleaded by them. (Para 14, 15) B. U.P. Revenue Code, 2006- Sections 67 & 67A - Impugned order passed in proceedings u/s 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, for eviction of the petitioners. Petitioners pleaded that they are agricultural labourers and since they are occupants of land, they were entitled to the benefit of Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Held: Land from where the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted is recorded as 'Banjar'. It has not been earmarked as an abadi site and is therefore, not land referred to under Section 63 of the Code. Therefore, the petitioners are not eligible for the benefit of Section 67A. Also none of the petitioners belongs to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. (Para 11, 16) Dismissed. (E-5) ## Text 6 All. Sri Raju Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 481 12. We also find that the impugned order is appealable under Section 11 of The Passport Act, 1967, therefore, the petitioner may avail the remedy of Appeal. He may also apply for permission before the concerned Court under Section 22 of the The Passport Act, 1967 read with Notification No.GSR 570(E).-I, dated 25.08.1993. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal. If the petitioner files an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 11 of The Passport Act, 1967 within three weeks from today alongwith a certified copy of this order, the appeal of the petitioner shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority without raising any objection as to the limitation. 14. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner. ---------- (2023) 6 ILRA 481 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. Writ-C No. 36353 of 2019 Connected With Writ-C No. 36276 of 2019 and Writ-C No. 40800 of 2019 and Writ-C No. 36362 of 2019 Sri Raju ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla, Sri Ramesh Chandra Singh (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Tariq Maqbool Khan A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 67 & 67A - Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, provides that in case a house exists over land referred to in Section 63 of the Code, having been built prior to November 29, 2012, the housing site can be settled with its owner on such terms and conditions as may be specified. Held - Merely because a person lower in order of preference has encroached upon Gaon Sabha land, he cannot and should not be granted the benefit of Section 67A unless and until he is in a position to establish categorically that a person higher in preference is not available in the village. In the instant case, Petitioners in their applications u/s 67A, nowhere have stated that no agricultural labourers or village artisans belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe are residing in village, which was necessarily required to be pleaded by them. (Para 14, 15) B. U.P. Revenue Code, 2006- Sections 67 & 67A - Impugned order passed in proceedings u/s 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, for eviction of the petitioners. Petitioners pleaded that they are agricultural labourers and since they are occupants of land, they were entitled to the benefit of Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Held: Land from where the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted is recorded as 'Banjar'. It has not been earmarked as an abadi site and is therefore, not land referred to under Section 63 of the Code. Therefore, the petitioners are not eligible for the benefit of Section 67A. Also none of the petitioners belongs to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. (Para 11, 16) Dismissed. (E-5) (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.) 482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1. Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh, Senior Advocate for the petitioners in these writ petitions and Shri Tariq Maqbool Khan for the Gaon Sabha. 2. These writ petitions arise out of proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, for eviction of the petitioners from separate areas of plot no. 188 situated in village Pachrukhiya, Tehsil Padrauna, District Kushinagar, which is recorded in the revenue records as 'Banjar'. Separate orders have been passed for eviction of the petitioners and on their consequential appeals, dismissing them. However, since the submissions made are common, the petitions are being decided by a common order. 3. It would be relevant to note that proceedings for eviction of the petitioners appear to have been instituted, consequent to directions issued by the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation. 4. In all the petitions, the contention of learned counsel is that petitioners are agricultural labourers and since they are occupants of land which is not reserved for a public purpose and is not governed by the provisions of Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, they were entitled to the benefit of Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Therefore, the orders of their eviction should not have been passed because they had filed applications seeking this benefit, which proceedings are still pending. It is also contended that property demanded that the proceedings under Section 67A should have been consolidated and heard together with the eviction proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, which was not done. The orders impugned are, therefore, vitiated and liable to be setaside. 5. In so far as the submission that the proceedings for eviction under Section 67 should have been heard and decided along with the proceedings under Section 67A filed by the petitioners, learned counsel, on a pointed query by the Court, admits that no application for consolidation of the afore-noted two cases were ever filed by any of the petitioners. 6. In these four petitions, only two of the petitioners, namely Smt. Nagina in Writ Petition No. 36276 of 2019 and Smt. Sunita, in Writ Petition No. 36362 of 2019, claim to belong to the backward class. The other two do not claim to belong either to the scheduled caste or the backward class. 7. The issue in the writ petition is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which provides that in case a house exists over land referred to in Section 63 of the Code, having been built prior to November 29, 2012, the housing site can be settled with its owner on such terms and conditions as may be specified. 8. The benefit of Section 67 is liable to be granted as regards land referred to in Section 63 of the Code. Section 63 speaks of land, which may be allotted for abadi site and empowers the Sub Divisional Officer, on his own motion or on the resolution of the Land Management Committee, to earmark land for abadi site. The second requirement for a person to be entitled to the benefit of Section 67A is that he should be a person referred to in sub-section 1 of Section 64. 9. Section 64 sub-section 1 talks of the orders of preference to be observed 6 All. Sri Raju Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 483 while making allotment of land referred to in Section 63, namely land which has been earmarked for abadi sites. 10. Section 64 of the Code reads as follows. "64. Allotment of abadi sites.- (1) The following order of preference shall be observed in making allotment of land referred to Section 63 :- (a) an agricultural labourer or a village artisan residing in the [Gram Panchayat] and belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or other Backward Classes or a person of general category living below poverty line as determined by the State Government. (b) any other agricultural labourer or a village artisan residing in the [Gram Panchayat]. (c) any other person residing in the [Gram Panchayat] and belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or other Backward Classes or a person of general category living below poverty line as determined by the State Government: Provided that preference will be given to widow and physically handicapped person within same category. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section - (1) "other backward class" means the backward class of citizens specified scheduled-I of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (U.P. Act, No. 4 of 1994); (2) "person of general category living below poverty line" means such persons as may be determined from time to time by the State Government. (2) In making an allotment under this section, preference shall be given to a person who either holds no house or has insufficient accommodation considering the requirement of his family. (3) Every land allotted under this section shall be held by the allottee on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed: [Provided that if the allottee is a married man and his wife is alive, she shall be co-allottee of equal share in the land so allotted.]" 11. It is not disputed that land from where the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted, is recorded as 'Banjar'. It has not been earmarked as an abadi site till date and is therefore, not land referred to under Section 63 of the Code. 12. Section 64 extracted above, shows the order of preference to be followed up while making allotment of an abadi site. Highest in this order of preference are agricultural labourers or village artisans belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribes followed by other backward classes and, thereafter, by persons of general category living below the poverty line. 13. None of the petitioners belongs to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe as already noted herein above. Two of them claim to belong to the backward class while two appear to be from the general category. 14. Careful perusal of the applications under Section 67A, which are stated to have been filed by the petitioners, reveals that nowhere in these applications have the applicants stated that no agricultural labourers or village artisan belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe are residing in village Pachrukhiya. This was necessarily required to be pleaded by them. 484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 15. Merely because a person lower in order of preference has encroached upon Gaon Sabha land, he cannot and should not be granted the benefit of Section 67A unless and until he is in a position to establish categorically that a person higher in preference is not available in the village. Any other interpretation of Section 67A would result in great injustice as an unauthorized occupant would be liable to be granted its benefit only on account of him or her having illegally encroached upon Gaon Sabha property, despite other needier and persons higher in preference being available in the village. 16. Therefore, and for the reasons given above, this Court is constrained to hold that not only is the land in issue in this writ petitions not land governed by Section 63 of the Code, as it has not been reserved for allotment as abadi site, the petitioners are also, prima facie, not eligible to the benefit of Section 67A as their applications are bereft of necessary pleadings. Therefore on both counts the benefit of Section 67A cannot be extended to the petitioners. 17. Although, reference has also been made in the writ petition as also the applications under Section 67A to provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, such reference or reliance, in my considered opinion, is not tenable because on date, as also on the date the applications under Section 67A have been filed by the petitioners, the said Act, namely U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act stood repealed. 18. In view of the foregoing, these writ petitions lack force and are accordingly dismissed. ---------- (2023) 6 ILRA 484 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. Writ-C No. 39191 of 2022 V-Mart Retail Ltd., Gurgaon ...Petitioner Versus L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Jitendra Prasad Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra Civil Law - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14. Issue: Whether a secured creditor, in exercise of its power under the Act, could take actual physical possession of the secured asset in possession of a lessee? Held: The Apex Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar categorized leases into three classes: i Lease created before the property was mortgaged: It was held that, in such cases, the lessee will have the right to enjoy the leased property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease, irrespective of whether the subsequent mortgagee of the immovable property had knowledge of such lease or not. ii Lease created after the execution of the mortgage deed: In cases where the mortgage deed does not prohibit the mortgagor from making a lease of the mortgaged property, and so long as the lease satisfies the requirements of subsection (2) of Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act, it would be valid and binding on the secured creditor. iii Lease created after service of notice under Section 13(2): Such a lease would be void