Justice Alok Mathur passed the order on a plea filed by one Shahban.

‘Rules followed’

• The enquiry was conducted by the revenue officials and they had submitted their report, providing all the necessary ingredients regarding the location of the legal encroachment pursuant to which notice was given to the petitioners, providing therein the extent of encroachment, area of encroachment etc. and asking the petitioners to submit their reply.
• The reply was furnished to the Assistant Collector, who did not find that there was any justification given by the petitioners for occupation of the land, which was recorded as a “Khalihan” and hence a Gram Sabha land.
• As the petitioners were unable to demonstrate that they had any right, title, or interest in the said land, the Assistant Collector held that the reply was unsatisfactory and passed orders for eviction and imposition of a penalty.
• Accordingly, from the perusal of the aforesaid material, it is evident that the respondents have followed the Rules prescribed under Rule 66 and 67 of the Revenue Code Rules, and it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed in violation of the said Rules.
• With regard to the imposition of penalty, there was no material to link the petitioners to either construction or occupation of the Mosque; the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.

Eviction order

• Proceedings were initiated against the petitioners over alleged encroachment on Gram Sabha land by building a mosque.
• The petitioners appeared before the Tehsildar and filed their objections stating that they had not constructed a mosque on the Gram Sabha land.
• They stated that the existing mosque had been constructed 60 years before to facilitate the persons following Islam and further prayed for setting aside the notice.
• The Tehsildar after considering the objections raised by the petitioners rejected the same holding that the land on which the mosque was existing is recorded as “Khalihan” and therefore is a land owned by the Gram Sabha.
• It was held by the Tehsildar that the petitioner did not have any right interest or title in the disputed land and therefore passed orders for eviction and imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs 36,000.
• The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order, filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Lucknow.
• The Additional District Magistrate after considering the entire material on record noted that the petitioners were not able to demonstrate that they had any right, interest or title in the disputed property as the same was undisputedly recorded as Gram Sabha land.
• The Additional District Magistrate, accordingly, did not find any reason for interfering with the order passed by the Tehsildar and accordingly rejected the appeal.
• Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners moved the high court.
• The petitioners had argued that due opportunity of hearing was denied to the petitioner and the statement of the Lekhpal was never recorded and neither was any evidence led by the State.
• It was further contended that the petitioners were not permitted to cross examine any of the witnesses for the State.
• Standing counsel for the state opposed the plea and submitted that the procedure prescribed under Rules 66 and 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules were followed.