Rishi Pal Singh guidelines are not mandatory in Section 67 proceedings absent State adoption.

The petitioner, Gorakhnath, claimed that his residential house and boundary wall stood on his own land comprised in Gata Nos. 949, 953 and 955, and that he had not encroached upon adjoining public land recorded as Naveen Parti.

Proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated on the basis of a Lekhpal’s report dated 24 April 2018, alleging that the petitioner had illegally occupied 0.006 hectare of Gata No. 954-Kha, recorded as Gaon Sabha Naveen Parti land, and had constructed a pucca house and boundary wall thereon.

The petitioner filed an objection on 9 July 2018 and sought time to produce evidence. The proceedings remained pending until March 2023, but the petitioner did not produce supporting evidence.

The competent authority thereafter ordered his eviction and imposed compensation of ₹5,000 and execution expenses of ₹5.

The petitioner’s appeal was initially dismissed in default, later restored, and ultimately dismissed on merits after the appellate authority affirmed the finding of encroachment.

The Court applied Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, concerning removal of unauthorized occupation from public or Gaon Sabha land, along with the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

It considered Rishi Pal Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 829, which laid down procedural guidelines for proceedings under Sections 67, 67-A and 26; however, relying on Shahban v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 1246, the Court held that those guidelines were not mandatory unless adopted by the State through amendment of the Rules, particularly because some directions would convert the summary statutory procedure into a regular trial-like procedure.

The Court further applied the principle that concurrent findings of fact are ordinarily not disturbed under Article 226 unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from an error of law, as recognized in Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689 and Surinder Singh v. S. Teja Singh Manshia, (2007) 15 SCC 785.

It also relied on Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 995, reiterating that courts must adopt a strict approach toward illegal construction and should not facilitate or regularize unlawful occupation or construction.

The Court found that the petitioner had filed an objection and had expressly sought time to produce evidence, but failed to produce any evidence during the nearly five-year pendency of the proceedings.

The record therefore did not support the allegation that he had been denied a hearing.

The plea of chronic illness was rejected because the medical documents produced related to a period after the order under Section 67 had already been passed and did not establish incapacity during the relevant proceedings.

The Court further held that the petitioner’s reliance on Rishi Pal Singh was misplaced because, under Shahban, the additional guidelines were not mandatory absent their statutory adoption by the State; moreover, the petitioner did not identify any express procedure under the Code or Rules that had been violated.

The Lekhpal’s report, revenue entries, and concurrent findings of the authorities established unauthorized occupation of public land, and no perversity, legal error, or evidentiary failure warranting Article 226 interference was demonstrated.

Finding no illegality, infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the concurrent orders directing eviction from 0.006 hectare of Gaon Sabha Naveen Parti land, the Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The reliefs seeking quashing of the orders and dropping of the Section 67 proceedings were consequently refused.