Allahabad High Court Upholds Eviction Order Against Mosque Built On Govt Land, But Quashes Penalty Under Revenue Code

Recently, while holding that the mosque in question was illegally constructed on the Gram Sabah land which was recorded as 'Khalihan' in the revenue records, the Allahabad High Court removed penalty imposed under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the present mosque occupants as there was no material to link them to the construction of the mosque and did not have any title, right or interest in the property. Justice Alok Mathur held,“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.”Proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the petitioners show causing them as to why they should not be evicted from the property which belonged to the Gram Sabah on which the mosque had been illegally constructed. After the petitioners filed their reply stating that the mosque was not constructed by them but to facilitate the followers of Islam, the eviction order was passed. Penalty was imposed upon the petitioners for constructing the mosque by illegally encroaching upon the Gram Sabah land recorded as 'khalihan' in the revenue records. Against this order, petitioners approached the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Lucknow, who upheld the order of the Tehsildar. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court. The Court observed that the procedure prescribed in Sections 66 and 67 of the UP Revenue Code was followed by the Tehsildar while ordering eviction of the petitioners and that the petitioners could not demonstrate their right, title or interest in the property. However, the Court held that there was no material on record connecting the petitioners to the construction of the mosque built 60 years ago, accordingly, no penalty could be imposed on them.The Court noted that a coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court in Rishipal Singh vs State of U.P & Others had framed guidelines regarding procedure to be followed in while exercising powers under Section 67 of the Code. While laying down the guidelines, the Single Judge had provided that the aggrieved has a right to cross examine the person who has prepared the report against regarding encroachment. Regarding the argument of the petitioners that no opportunity to cross-examine was provided to them and therefore, the authority had acted in contravention of the aforesaid guidelines, the Court held that the Code had provided detailed procedure for eviction and the guidelines framed by the Court cannot be implemented when such detailed procedure in prescribed in law. “We further take notice of the fact that this Court in the case of Rishipal (supra), has not discussed the inadequacy or any infirmity with the existing procedure prescribed in the U.P Revenue Code Rules, but suggested a fresh mechanism in itself and termed it as “guidelines” to be adopted as procedure under Section 67, 67A and 26 of the U.P Revenue Code. 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 held that the guidelines laid down by the coordinate bench could not be enforced unless they were adopted by way of amendment in the Rules. Since the same was not done, the Court held that it was not mandatory to follow the guidelines laid down by the coordinate bench. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed removing the penalty imposed on the petitioners. Case Title: Shahban And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 152Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 152Click Here To Read/Download Order

Allahabad High Court Upholds Eviction Order Against Mosque Built On Govt Land, But Quashes Penalty Under Revenue Code

Upasna Agrawal

Tags