No Right, Title Or Interest Over Land: Allahabad High Court Dismissed Petition Challenging Eviction Of Mosque Built On Gram Sabha Land

Justice Alok Mathur observed, “…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, this Court is of the view that 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”.

“When tested on the anvil of the existing provisions contained in Rules 66 and 67 of the U.P. Revenue Court Rules we find that the enquiry was conducted by the revenue officials and they had submitted their report in Form 19, providing all the necessary ingredients regarding the location of the legal encroachment pursuant to which notice was given to the petitioners in Form 20, 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 at Gata No. 648, situated at Village - Asti, Pargana – Mohana, Tehsil - Bakshi Ka Talab, District - Lucknow, which was recorded as a “Khalihan” and hence a Gram Sabha land”, the Bench had noted.

Advocate Mohd. Mansoor appeared for the petitioner and Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, Standing Counsel appeared for the respondent.

Pertinently, the petitioners in the matter contended that they only visited the Mosque for prayers, and denied that they were part of the management of the Mosque or the manager/Mutwalee.

The dispute pertained to an alleged encroachment that the Land Management Committee reported over land bearing Gata No. 648 in Village Asti, Tehsil Bakshi-Ka-Talab, District Lucknow, recorded in revenue records as “Khalihan”, i.e., land belonging to the Gram Sabha.

Acting on the report submitted in RC Form-19, the Assistant Collector issued notice in RC Form-20 calling upon the petitioners to explain why they should not be evicted. The petitioners denied encroachment, asserting that the mosque had existed for nearly sixty years and was constructed by members of the Muslim community long ago.

The Tehsildar, however, found that the land undisputedly vested in the Gram Sabha and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any lawful entitlement over it. Consequently, an eviction order along with a penalty of ₹36,000 was imposed. The appellate authority-the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lucknow, affirmed the decision, noting that neither before the original authority nor in appeal had the petitioners produced material establishing ownership, possession protected by law, or any legally recognisable interest in the land.

Before the Court, the principal challenge centred on alleged procedural violations, where the petitioners argued that the proceedings were vitiated because the statement of the Lekhpal was not recorded, no oral evidence was led by the State, and they were denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

The Court held that the statutory framework itself treats proceedings under Section 67 of the Code as summary proceedings. “Rule 192 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules provides that all questions arising for the determination in any summary proceedings under the Code shall be decided upon affidavits, and sub-rule (2) declares that the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P Revenue Code are to be treated as summary proceedings”, it noted.

However, the Bench, clarified that examination or cross-examination of revenue officials is not mandatory in every case and remains subject to the discretion of the revenue authority depending upon necessity.

The Bench on noting the observations by the Coordinate Bench in Rishipal, held, “…after carefully examining the aforesaid directions contained in para 74 of the said judgment, this Court finds that the remaining part of the directions are clarificatory/amplification of the provisions already contained in Rule 66 and 67 of the Revenue Code Rules but the major departure from the prescribed rules has been provided in Clause (vi) of paragraph 74 of the Rishipal (supra) according to which it would be mandatory for the authority to examine the person who submitted the report and to permit the said authority to be cross-examined. The issue is whether any order issued in violation of Clause (vi) of para 74 of Rishipal (supra) can be set aside without there being an amendment in the appropriate rules by the State Government?”

“It is trite to say that in the present circumstances, the Legislature has already framed rules which are provided for in Rules 66 and 67 of the Revenue Code Rules; it is not a case where there is any absence of any prescription with regard to the procedure to be followed in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P Revenue Code enabling the Court to step in to fill the vacuum…”, it observed.

Cause Title: Shahban And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:21285]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Abdul Haleem, Ashid Ali, Mohammad Danish, Mohammad Kashif, Mohd. Mansoor, Mohd. Shameem Khan, Advocates.

Respondents: Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, Standing Counsel, Dilip Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment