UMESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2, 3 and Mr. D.S. Pandey, the learned counsel representing respondent 4 .

(2.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 30/12/2020 passed by respondent 3 Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau in Case No. 02973 of 2020 (Report v. Umesh Singh) under Sec. 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and the order dtd. 31/10/2023 passed by respondent Collector/District Magistrate, Mau in Appeal No. 35 of 2023 (Umesh Singh Tehsildar), under Sec. 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition).

(3.) Record shows that the Halka Lekhpal submitted his report dtd. 2/3/2020 (R.C. Form 19) alleging therein that petitioner is in illegal possession and occupation over Survey Plot No. 1 area 0.023 hectare which is recorded as a nala in the revenue record. After submission of aforesaid report, proceedings under Sec. 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 came to be registered against petitioner by way of Case No. 2973 of 2020 (Report Lekhpal v. Umesh Singh) under Sec. 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006. Accordingly, notice (R.C. Form 20) was issued to the petitioner. However, in spite of service of notice, the petitioner did not appear in aforementioned proceedings nor he filed his objection in the same. Respondent 3 Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau upon consideration of the material on record accepted the report of the Halka Lekhpal and accordingly, passed an order dtd. 30/12/2020, whereby not only eviction was directed against petitioner but also damages were imposed to the tune of 7,82,000/- Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dtd. 30/12/2020 preferred a time barred appeal in terms of Sec. 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before respondent 2 Collector/District Magistrate, Mau. The same was registered as Appeal No. 35 of 2023. Respondent 2 Collector/ District Magistrate, Mau did not agree with the grounds of appeal or the arguments raised on behalf of petitioner in support of the appeal. Consequently, respondent 2 Collector/District Magistrate, Mau without first deciding the delay condonation matter dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner by passing an order of affirmance dtd. 31/10/2023.