RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.C. Mishra for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for State and Sri Diwakar Singh for gaon sabha.

(2.) By the impugned order it was found that the petitioner, by encroaching over plot no. 342 which is land of chak road, has constructed the boundary wall over it as such the order of demolition of boundary wall as well as ejectment of the petitioner from the encroached area has been passed and the penalty of Rs. 10065/- has been imposed upon the petitioner.

(3.) The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the impugned order, the Tehsildar has not conducted any survey. Although the petitioner has raised specific plea that his construction is lying on plot no. 341 and not on plot no. 342. Thus in this controversy a survey was required to be conducted but it was not done. The impugned order has been passed relying upon the report of Lekhpal only, who submitted a report without conducting survey.