'Extremely Serious Issue': Allahabad HC Mulls Exemplary Cost On Raebareli Collector For Hastily Demolishing House Ignoring A Valid Claim

The Court directed the Collector and the officer responsible for altering revenue entries to personally explain their actions. A bench of Justice Alok Mathur also contemplated imposing an exemplary cost on them for proceeding hastily.

Briefly put, the bench was hearing a petition filed by Babu Lal, who challenged eviction and demolition proceedings initiated against him under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code.

It was his case that he was allotted a patta on the land in question situated at Poore Tain, Majre Jogmagdimpur, Tehsil Unchahar, Raebareli, on March 5, 1990. The patta was reflected in the revenue records.

Despite this, the Area Lekhpal reported that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the gaon-sabha land and had raised constructions.

Thereafter, proceedings under Section 67 were initiated against him. Even though he filed objections asserting his patta rights on the said land and pointed out errors in the records, the Tehsildar rejected his case in November 2023. Subsequently, an eviction order was passed along with the imposition of a penalty.

In appeal, the petitioner again relied on the patta, but the District Magistrate dismissed the appeal in May this year. Meanwhile, the authorities demolished his house.

Taking note of the facts of the case, the bench, at the outset, expressed surprise that none of the authorities considered the petitioner's case that he has been granted patta on the land in question, which the authorities claimed to be gaon-sabha land and on which the petitioner was allegedly found to be in unauthorized possession.

The Court strongly criticised the authorities for ignoring the petitioner's patta and proceeding to demolish the same in haste.

"We are surprised as to the manner of adjudication of such disputes as in the present case clearly when the petitioner was granted patta by the Land Management Committee and the patta was itself recorded in the revenue record/khatauni then certainly the petitioner could not have been held to be in illegal occupation of the said property".

Justice Mathur further observed thus:

"To demolish a house of an individual is extremely serious issue and should be done only when there is clear and ample evidence with regard to its illegal occupation. Heavy duty is entrusted to the authorities to proceed under Section 67 and 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code being fully satisfied about the facts before ordering demolition of an illegal buildings and in the present case clearly there is no material which can indicate that the petitioner had been in illegal occupation of the said premises and even the authorities below have not rebutted the stand of the petitioner with regard to his claim of having been granted patta by the land management committee".

The Bench also expressed concern at the speed of demolition despite the pendency of the appeal. It reminded the authorities thus:

"Undoubtedly, right to property is constitutionally protected under Article 300A of the Constitution and no person can be deprived of his right to property except in accordance with law".

Against the backdrop of these observations, the single judge directed the Collector, Raebareli, and the officer who endorsed the deletion of the petitioner's name from revenue records and recorded the land as public utility land to file personal affidavits within ten days.

The Court has also put them on notice to explain why exemplary cost should not be imposed for their conduct. The matter will be listed again on September 4 in the top ten cases.