Court says petitioner failed to prove his claim despite years of opportunity; holds that interference under Article 226 is unwarranted in view of concurrent findings and strict approach required in public land encroachment cases.
The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench has dismissed a writ petition filed by Gorakhnath Dubey challenging orders passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in connection with alleged encroachment on public land recorded as Naveen Parti belonging to the Gaon Sabha.
Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim despite having been given sufficient opportunity over several years to produce evidence before the revenue authorities. The Court found no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the orders passed by the competent authority and the appellate authority.
According to the judgment, proceedings were initiated on the basis of a Lekhpal’s report dated 24 April 2018, which stated that Gata No. 954-Kha, measuring 0.006 hectare, was recorded as public land and that the petitioner had raised a pucca residential house and boundary wall thereon. The petitioner filed objections in July 2018 and sought time to produce evidence, but no supporting material was produced until the matter was finally decided in March 2023.
The petitioner argued that he had constructed his house only on his own land and had not encroached upon Gata No. 954-Ka. He also claimed that he was denied an effective opportunity of hearing due to chronic illness and relied on the earlier decision in Rishi Pal Singh v. State of U.P. to contend that the procedure under Rule 67(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 was mandatory.
The State opposed the petition, pointing out that the construction stood on public land and that the petitioner had remained inactive despite repeated opportunities. The State also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin and the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Shahban v. State of U.P., both of which stress a strict approach in cases involving illegal construction and encroachment on public land.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s medical records were mostly from late 2023 and later, while the impugned order was passed in March 2023. It therefore rejected the plea that illness prevented him from participating in the proceedings. The Court further observed that the guidelines in Rishi Pal Singh were held in Shahban to be non-mandatory unless adopted by the State through amendments to the rules.
Emphasising that the proceedings had remained pending for nearly five years and that the petitioner had ample opportunity to place evidence on record, the Court held that the challenge was without merit. It also reiterated that courts should not adopt a lenient approach in matters of encroachment on public land, citing the Supreme Court’s warning against judicial regularisation of illegal constructions.
Ultimately, the High Court refused to interfere under Article 226, upheld the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities, and dismissed the writ petition.
Bottom Line :
Encroachment on public land - Dismissal of writ petition challenging orders passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 due to lack of evidence substantiating claims and concurrent findings by competent authorities.
Statutory provision(s): Section 67, Section 67-A, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Rule 67(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
Gorakhnath Dubey v. State of U.P., (All)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2981322
