/11757/2023 of SATYA PRAKASH TRIPATHI Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF REVENUE LKO. AND 4 OTHERS on 27 December 2023

1. The matter has been placed before this specially constitutedBench during ongoing winter vacation under an order passed bythe Hon'ble Chief Justice.

2. Heard Sri Chandan Srivastava, the learned counsel for theapplicant, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, the learned ChiefStanding assisted by Sri Anirudh Singh, leaned StandingCounsel Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 4, and Sri PankajGupta, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 5-GramSabha.

3. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner hasassailed validity of the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by theAssistant Collector (First Class)/ Tehsildar Payagpur, Bahraichin Case No. 2953 of 2022, under Section 67 of the U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 for eviction of the petitioner from landbearing Gata No. 831M measuring 0.0308 hectares andrecovery of Rs. 56,000/- towards damages and Rs. 4.50 towardsexecution expenses, order dated 02.06.2023 passed by theAssistant Collector in Case No. 2953/T 202208150502953rejecting the petitioner's application for setting aside the orderdated 20.12.2022 and the order dated 02.06.2023 and the orderdated 19.12.2023 passed by the Collector, Bahraich in Case No.1001 of 2023, under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006dismissing the petitioner's appeal filed against the aforesaidorders dated 20.12.2022 and 02.06.2023.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that anotice was issued to the petitioner, a copy whereof has beenannexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit, which does notcontain the name and designation of the authority who hasissued the notice and which contains blank spaces regarding the date of appearance and other particulars. He has submitted thatRule 67 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides that thenotice will be issued by an Assistant Collector whereas thesignatures on the aforesaid notice were made by the Lekhpalconcerned and not by the Assistant Collector. He has submittedthat no other notice was served upon the petitioner.

5. Opposing the petition, the learned Chief Standing Counselhas submitted that the notice annexed as Annexure No. 4 to thewrit petition is merely a notice issued by the Lekhpal forconducting inquiry, as provided in Rule 66 of the U.P. RevenueCode Rules, 2016 and a separate notice under Rule 67 wasissued to the petitioner on RC Form-20. However, theinstructions provided to the learned Chief Standing Counsel donot contain a copy of any other notice issued to the petitioner,except the notice which has been annexed with the writ petition.

6. The format of notice annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the writpetition, does not contain any space for the addressee of thenotice whereas the format of notice required to be sent underRule 67(2) and 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules is RCForm-20 and it categorically mentions the particulars ofaddressee which are required to be filed in the format.

7. Prima facie, it appears that the notice annexed as AnnexureNo. 4 to the writ petition is not a notice issued under Rule 67(2)and 67(5) on RC Form-20.

8. The learned counsel for the opposite parties agree that insteadof keeping the writ petition pending, it may be disposed off atthis stage by providing an opportunity to the opposite parties totake action after issuing a fresh notice in accordance with law.

9. As the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the AssistantCollector was an exparte order and the petitioner's applicationfor setting aside an exparte order has been rejected and hisappeal has also been rejected, the petitioner is being evictedfrom the property which is in his occupation without anadequate opportunity to defend having been provided to thepetitioner.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated20.12.2022 passed by the Assistant Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar Payagpur, Bahraich in Case No. 2953 of 2022, underSection 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for eviction of thepetitioner from land bearing Gata No. 831M measuring 0.0308hectares and recovery of Rs. 56,000/- towards damages and Rs.4.50 towards execution expenses, order dated 02.06.2023passed by the Assistant Collector in Case No. 2953/T

202208150502953 rejecting the petitioner's application forsetting aside the order dated 20.12.2022 and the order dated02.06.2023 and the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by theCollector, Bahraich in Case No. 1001 of 2023, under Section67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dismissing the petitioner'sappeal filed against the aforesaid orders dated 20.12.2022 and02.06.2023 are set aside.

11. The opposite parties are given liberty to issue a fresh noticeto the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of twoweeks from today. The petitioner may submit his written replyto the notice within a further period of two weeks. In case anyproceedings are instituted against the petitioner in furtheranceof the notice, the same shall be decided expeditiously inaccordance with law without granting any unnecessaryadjournment to any of the parties, within the period providedunder Rule 67(6) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules., 2016.

12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition standsfinally disposed of.

Order Date :- 27.12.2023Pradeep/-