BABURAM Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3-State and Sri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4-Gaon Sabha.

(2.) By the impugned order dtd. 22/1/2021 passed by the respondent No.3-Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector 1st Class, Tehsil-Narwal, District-Kanpur Nagar rendered in proceedings registered as Suit No.03064 of 2019, Computerized Suit No.T201903410403064 (State of U.P. Vs. Baburam) under Sec. 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), the petitioner was found to be illegal encroachment over the disputed parcels of land. The learned appellate court/Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Kanpur Nagar by the impugned order dtd. 20/7/2021 agreed with the findings of the learned trial court/Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector 1st Class, Tehsil-Narwal, District-Kanpur Nagar, and affirmed its judgement dtd. 22/1/2021.

(3.) Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ancestors of the petitioner were allotted a residential patta over the disputed parcels of land. The predecessors in interest of the petitioner had erected a residential house on the disputed parcels of land almost 35 years ago. This fact was confirmed in the report submitted by the Lekhpal which is appended as annexure 4 to the writ petition. The learned courts below erred in law and entered perverse findings by failing to consider the aforesaid defence as well as corroborative evidence in that regard. The petitioner is entitled to the protection of Sec. 67(A) of the Code.