The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a writ petition challenging eviction proceedings from Gram Sabha land, clarifying that the procedural guidelines laid down in the case of Rishipal Singh vs State of U.P. are not mandatory until the State Government formally adopts them through amendments to the U.P. Revenue Code Rules.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Mathur, while dismissing the petition filed by Shahban and another, observed that the existing summary procedure prescribed under Rules 66 and 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules remains the valid legal framework for such proceedings.
Background of the Case
The dispute pertains to Gata No. 648, measuring 0.300 hectares in Village Asti, Tehsil Bakshi-Ka-Talab, Lucknow. The land is recorded as “Khalihan” (threshing floor) in revenue records, signifying it as Gram Sabha property. Proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, were initiated against the petitioners for allegedly encroaching upon this land and constructing a mosque.
A notice in RC Form 19 was issued, to which the petitioners filed objections on December 11, 2024. They contended that they had not constructed the mosque and that the structure had existed for 60 years. However, the Tehsildar rejected these objections, holding that the land belonged to the Gram Sabha and the petitioners lacked any title. Consequently, an eviction order and a penalty of ₹36,000 were imposed on February 28, 2025. This order was subsequently upheld by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lucknow, on October 31, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners’ counsel, Sri Mohd. Mansoor, argued that the Tehsildar violated the procedure established by the High Court in Rishipal Singh vs State of U.P. & Others (Writ-C No. 6658 of 2022). He contended that according to paragraphs 74 and 75 of that judgment, the authorities were mandated to record the statement of the Lekhpal and allow the petitioners to cross-examine witnesses. It was argued that the summary conclusion of proceedings without such oral evidence rendered the orders quashable.
Conversely, the Standing Counsel for the State argued that the proceedings under Section 67 are statutory summary proceedings as per Section 225-A of the Code. He emphasized that the Rishipal Singh judgment merely proposed “guidelines” to be “adopted” by the State. Since the U.P. Revenue Code Rules have not yet been amended to incorporate these guidelines, the existing summary rules prevail.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court examined the statutory scheme under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code and Rules 66 and 67. It noted that Section 225-A specifically provides that summary proceedings shall be decided upon affidavits, and cross-examination is at the discretion of the Revenue Officer if deemed necessary.
Regarding the impact of the Rishipal Singh judgment, the Court observed:
“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?”
The Court distinguished the situation from the landmark Vishaka case, noting that in the present case, there is no legislative vacuum because specific, valid, and enforceable rules already exist.
The Bench further remarked:
“Once the Court itself has issued directions for the ‘adoption’ of the said guidelines/rules by the State of U.P., then such adoption is necessary, and without such adoption, the guidelines framed by this Court cannot be implemented.”
The Court highlighted that adopting the Rishipal Singh guidelines would effectively convert a summary procedure into a regular procedure involving the adducing of oral evidence, which was not the intention of the guidelines prior to formal state adoption.
The Decision
The High Court concluded that the respondents had followed the existing procedure prescribed under Rules 66 and 67. Since the petitioners failed to demonstrate any right, title, or interest in the “Khalihan” land, the eviction order was deemed valid.
However, the Court provided partial relief regarding the penalty.
“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.”
With these observations, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of the eviction orders.
Case Details:
- Case Name: Shahban And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others
- Case Number: WRIT-C No. 704 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Alok Mathur
- Counsel for Petitioner(s): Abdul Haleem, Ashid Ali, Mohammad Danish, Mohammad Kashif, Mohd. Mansoor, Mohd. Shameem Khan
- Counsel for Respondent(s): C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, Yogesh Kumar Awasthi (Standing Counsel)
- Date: March 25, 2026
