Savitri Sonkar vs. State Of U.P. Deptt. Of Revenue Thru. Prin. Secy., Lko. And Others

Held

The Court held that the proceedings for correction of records under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code were illegal and arbitrary. This was primarily because no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, and the existing decree dated 18.03.1975 in favour of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest regarding the disputed property was ignored. The Court found that Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code could not have been deployed for correction of records in these facts. Furthermore, the demolition carried out subsequently was also deemed illegal and arbitrary for not following the statutory prescription under Section 67 of the Revenue Code and the guidelines of the Supreme Court. The Court reasoned that merely setting aside the impugned order would not suffice, given the illegal demolition and the conduct of state officials. The ratio decidendi is that revenue authorities cannot unilaterally alter revenue records or demolish structures without due process, notice, and adherence to existing decrees and statutory guidelines, especially when such actions violate fundamental rights and established legal principles. The impugned order dated 10.02.2025 was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed with costs of Rs. 20 lakhs. The respondents were directed to hand over possession of the vacant land to the petitioner within two weeks and to conduct an inquiry to recover the costs from responsible officials.

Facts

The petitioner, Savitri Sonkar, is the recorded tenure holder of land at gata No.431 Kha. Proceedings were initiated suo moto under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raebareli, to correct revenue records. An order dated 10.02.2025 was passed, declaring the land as Gaon Sabha land and deleting the petitioner's name without notice or opportunity of hearing. Subsequently, a revenue team demolished a structure on the land on 24.03.2025. The petitioner's predecessor-in-interest had a decree in their favour from 18.03.1975 under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, and the petitioner acquired the land via a registered sale deed on 24.02.2021, with her name mutated in revenue records. The petitioner argued that the proceedings under Section 38(5) were illegal and arbitrary, especially given the existing decree and lack of notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code for correction of revenue records, which resulted in the deletion of the petitioner's name without notice or opportunity of hearing, were illegal and arbitrary, particularly in light of an existing decree under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in favour of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the order dated 10.02.2025 was illegal and arbitrary because no opportunity of hearing was provided. Furthermore, adjudication of right, title, or interest of any person cannot be done under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The proceedings were initiated based on a report from the Naib Tehsildar, and the demolition carried out on 24.03.2025 was illegal as it did not follow statutory prescriptions and Supreme Court guidelines, specifically relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in the matter of demolition of structures (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022). Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents.