In a significant judgment upholding the rule of law and property rights, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has imposed a heavy cost of Rs. 20 lakhs on the State of Uttar Pradesh for the illegal demolition of a petitioner’s property and the arbitrary correction of revenue records without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The Court termed the action of the revenue authorities as a “deliberate disregard for the rule of law” and directed the State to recover the cost from the responsible officials.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Mathur allowed the writ petition filed by Savitri Sonkar, setting aside the order dated February 10, 2025, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Raebareli. The impugned order had unilaterally declared the petitioner’s land as Gaon Sabha land under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, leading to the demolition of structures on the property. The Court directed the State to hand over vacant possession of the land to the petitioner within two weeks and ordered an inquiry by an officer not below the rank of Additional Chief Secretary to fix accountability.
Background of the Dispute
The matter pertains to land situated at Gata No. 431 Kha, Village Devanandpur, District Raebareli. The petitioner and her sister purchased a portion of the land (3036 square meters) via a registered sale deed on February 24, 2021, from Ratan Lal, the son of the original tenure holder, Santdeen. Their names were subsequently mutated in the revenue records.
The petitioner’s title traced back to a judgment and decree dated March 18, 1975, passed under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act), which declared Santdeen as the owner.
However, on February 10, 2025, the SDM, Raebareli, initiated suo moto proceedings under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code based on a report by the Naib Tehsildar claiming the 1975 entry was forged. The SDM ordered the deletion of the petitioner’s name, recording the land as Gaon Sabha property allotted to the GST Department. Following this, on March 24, 2025, authorities demolished the petitioner’s construction.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Sri Vivek Raj Singh argued that the proceedings were illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. He submitted:
- The petitioner, a recorded tenure holder, was neither issued a notice nor made a party to the Section 38 proceedings.
- Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code allows for the correction of errors but expressly bars deciding questions of title, which was done in this case.
- The authorities ignored the final and binding decree of 1975 passed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
- The demolition violated the Supreme Court’s guidelines in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024), as no show-cause notice was served.
- Even if the land belonged to the Gaon Sabha, eviction could only be carried out under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, which mandates notice and a hearing.
Counsel for the State, Senior Advocate Sri Satish Kumar, opposed the petition, arguing that the 1975 order had infirmities and conferred no valid title. He also noted that a revision petition filed by another affected tenure holder had already been dismissed by the Commissioner.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the conduct of the revenue officials. Justice Mathur observed that the facts demonstrated a “very sorry state of affairs” and a “lack of sensitivity.”
1. Violation of Natural Justice and Statutory Procedure The Court noted that the petitioner’s name was deleted from the records without any notice, solely based on a report by the Naib Tehsildar. The Court held:
“In the instant case suo moto proceedings were initiated under Section 38 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code for correction of revenue records which was unilaterally corrected… without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”
2. Abuse of Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code The Court emphasized that Section 38 is meant for correcting errors and cannot be used to adjudicate title disputes, especially when a declaratory decree (Section 229B) exists. The Court stated:
“The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, Raebareli, had initiated proceedings under Section 38 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code without issuing any notice… merely on the basis of the revenue report, his name was deleted.”
3. Illegal Demolition Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024), the Court held that the demolition was carried out in “clear violation” of the law. Even regarding encroachments on public land, the Court pointed out that Section 67 of the Revenue Code prescribes a specific procedure for eviction, which was ignored.
“Merely on noticing that some construction has arisen or is existing on any gram sabha land does not give suo moto power to any authority to proceed to demolish the said structure in absence of any proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code.”
4. Arbitrariness and Malafide The Court observed that the officials were aware of the 1975 court order but deliberately ignored it.
“This action of the respondents clearly shows the malafide in proceeding against the petitioner in the present case… The highest revenue officials of the District are clearly oblivious of the rights and duties which has been conferred on them by the law.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition with the following directions:
- Order Set Aside: The impugned order dated February 10, 2025, passed by the SDM was set aside.
- Restitution: Respondents were directed to hand over possession of the vacant land to the petitioner within two weeks.
- Compensation: A cost of Rs. 20 lakhs was imposed on the State, to be paid to the petitioner within two months.
- Recovery from Officials: The State was directed to conduct an inquiry by an officer not below the rank of Additional Chief Secretary to identify and recover the cost from the responsible officials, including the highest officer involved.
- Training: The Court directed the State to take immediate steps to adequately train revenue officials regarding property rights and legal procedures.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Savitri Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. and others
- Case Number: Writ C No. 11232 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Alok Mathur
- Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Vivek Raj Singh (Senior Advocate), assisted by Sri Akshat Kumar, Sri Shantanu Sharma, et al.
- Counsel for Respondents: Sri Satish Kumar (Senior Advocate), assisted by Sri Prem Singh.
