ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Mr. Pradeep Singh, Counsel for respondent No. 4/Gaon Sabha.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that proceeding under Sec. 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated and conducted in arbitrary manner against the petitioners. He further submitted that petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste category and residing in the village since before 17 years. He further submitted that without making proper survey/demarcation of the plot in dispute, order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the petitioners. He submitted that in appeal filed under Sec. 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with the prayer for condonation of delay has been dismissed in arbitrary manner on the ground of limitation as well as on merit without considering the points set up in appeal for delay condonation as well as on merit. He further submitted that petitioners are in possession of the plot in dispute over which their construction situated but the order for ejectement and damages has been passed against the petitioners without proper consideration of petitioner's case. He further submitted that dismissal of the petitioners' appeal on the ground of limitation is also against the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and another v. Mst. Kantiji and others, 1987 (13) ALR 306 (SC), in which it has been held that in place of dismissing the matter on technical ground, matter should be decided on merits. He further placed reliance upon the case Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2023 (160) RD 204 (Alld.), in order to demonstrate that proceeding under Sec. 67 as well as 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 be decided after giving proper opportunity of hearing and making proper survey/ demarcation of the plot in dispute. He further submitted that petitioners' construction house has been demolished by the authorities during pendency of the petitioners' appeal under Sec. 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is illegal as petitioners' appeal was pending at that time. He placed reliance upon para No. 10 of the writ petition in order to demonstrate the fact that petitioner's house has been demolished by the respondents in arbitrary manner.