Article 300A & Illegal Eviction: UP Revenue Code Section 67 Explained

Abstract

No person can lose property unless the law says so, according to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Even though the right to property is not fundamental anymore after the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, it is still protected by the Constitution. This protection stops the government from taking property in a way that’s not fair. Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006 allows officials to deal with damage, misuse and wrong use of property that belongs to Gram Panchayats and other local groups. This power must make sure that public land is protected. It should not allow people to be removed from their land because of surveys, not enough warning or unfair decisions.

This paper looks at the words in the Constitution and the laws and cases such as Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P., Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka. It says that problems with the process become important when they affect the power to act according to the law or give a chance to argue against the claim. There’s a difference between seizing property and evicting people from it. It also provides a way to test if the problems are important if they do harm and what the correct solution should be.

Keywords

Keywords: Article 300A; Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006; Section 67; natural justice; land; procedural fairness; eviction.

I. Introduction

Land, Property Rights and Public Interest

Land can be a home, a place to earn a living or a resource for a community. In Uttar Pradesh problems of ponds, roads, grazing grounds and other common land are a confluence of two interests, namely, the state’s obligation to protect common property and the right of an individual not to be arbitrarily deprived of it [2]. Art 300A “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law [3].” Article 19(1)(f) was omitted, and the right to property was taken out of the list of rights by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, repealing Article 31 [4].

Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006

Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, provides a way to handle damage, misuse and wrongful occupation of property that is entrusted to Gram Panchayats or other local authorities [5].

Purpose of Section 67 Proceedings

It is important to recognise the provision’s purpose: unauthorised occupation can damage shared resources and stop lawful public use. An allegation of encroachment cannot, by itself, be proof [6].

Procedural Fairness and Deprivation of Property

The property must be correctly identified, the person concerned must receive the notice, and relevant objections must be considered, and the final order must follow the Code and Rules [7]. The paper argues that not every procedural error cancels a revenue proceeding. A defect is constitutionally significant if it affects jurisdiction, defeats a safeguard, stops a meaningful hearing, hides the identity of the land, or leads to enforcement [8].

II. Problem of the Research, Questions and Methodology

A. Research. Questions

The issue is how Section 67 can return land while preventing eviction that occurs through a process. The paper discusses what Article 300-A requires, what protections are offered by the oversight of Section 67, and when a violation of the rules warrants an appeal or a challenge to the Constitution.

B. Scope

This paper uses research looking at constitutional and statutory texts and reported court decisions. It mainly focuses on Section 67 proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, with Rules 66 and 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016. Acquisition cases are cited to illustrate Article 300-A. They are not treated as the same as eviction cases. The paper does not offer data on how procedural violations happen in revenue administration. [9]

Overview of the Research Scope

Research Element	Scope of Examination
Constitutional provision	Article 300-A of the Constitution of India
Principal legislation	Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006
Relevant statutory provision	Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006
Relevant procedural rules	Rules 66 and 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016
Research materials	Constitutional and statutory texts and reported court decisions
Distinction examined	Acquisition of property and eviction proceedings
Research limitation	No empirical data on procedural violations in revenue administration

III. Constitutional Meaning of Article 300A

A. From Fundamental Right to Constitutional Guarantee

Before the Forty-Fourth Amendment, Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 provided fundamental-right protection for property. Their removal reflected a choice to permit greater legislative space for land reform and socioeconomic regulation. Yet Article 300-A retained a limitation: deprivation must be authorised by law. The guarantee is not a right to retain every property interest regardless of valid regulation, nor does it prevent lawful eviction from public land. It does, however, prevent the executive from substituting force or administrative convenience for authority [10].

B. Authority of Law and Rule of Law

The phrase “authority of law” requires more than a legitimate objective. There must be a valid legal source, the authority must act within its jurisdiction, and statutory conditions must be observed. In K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court examined Article 300-A in the context of legislation affecting property and emphasised that the law authorising deprivation remains subject to constitutional scrutiny [11]. The judgement is especially important for its rejection of the idea that the State’s power over property is unlimited merely because property is no longer a fundamental right.

The judgement is especially important for its rejection of the idea that the State’s power over property is unlimited merely because property is no longer a fundamental right [12].

Article 300-A must be applied in context. Compulsory acquisition, regulation and eviction from public land are distinct. Acquisition raises questions of transfer, public purpose and compensation; Section 67 concerns property entrusted to public bodies or land they are entitled to possess under the Code. Legality applies to both, but acquisition-specific rules should not automatically govern every eviction [13].

C. Relation with Article 14 and Natural Justice

Article 14 provides another guarantee against arbitrariness or discrimination committed by the State. Arbitrariness in a Section 67 case can manifest itself in an inconsistent treatment of similar cases, irrelevant factors determining the decision and ignoring objections raised in the case. Article 300-A requires checking if deprivation was authorised by law, while Article 14 checks whether such power was exercised arbitrarily [14].

Notice of the case, in natural justice, is required to be provided, and an opportunity to respond must be given. The exact scope of the hearing would depend on the relevant statutes and facts of the matter. A hearing would not have any meaning in terms of natural justice if notice was not provided for the plot or the allegations, if evidence that is used is kept from the individual, and if the decision has been taken before the objections are considered. [15]

IV. Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006

A. From Fundamental Right to Guarantee

Prior to the Forty-Fourth Amendment, Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 guaranteed properties as a fundamental right. The latter was done away with because the framers of the Constitution wanted to give the legislators the freedom to enact legislation for land reforms and socio-economic planning. After that change, Article 300-A still says that no one can be deprived of property without a law saying so. This is not a guarantee that you can keep every piece of property no matter what. It also does not stop eviction from public land. It does stop the government from using force or shortcuts instead of following the law.

B. Authority of Law and Rule of Law

The phrase “authority of law” means more than having a good reason. There must be a law that allows the action. The authority must also be acting within its powers, and it must follow all the conditions set in the law. In the case of K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court looked at Article 300-A when property was affected by a law. The Court said that even if a law allows deprivation of property, it still must be constitutional [16]. I think this case is important because it shows that the state does not have power over property just because property is no longer a right. I believe Article 300-A must be understood in context. Compulsory acquisition, regulation and eviction from land are not the same. Compulsory acquisition is different from regulation and eviction.

Acquisition involves transferring property for use and paying compensation. Section 67 deals with property given to bodies or land they legally own under the Code. Both need to be legal. Rules for acquisition shouldn’t automatically apply to every eviction case [17].

C. How Article 14 Relates to Natural Justice

Article 14 protects people from biased actions by the State. In a Section 67 case, arbitrariness might happen if similar situations are treated differently if decisions are based on things that don’t matter or if objections are ignored without thought. Article 300-A is concerned with whether there is any law for deprivation. Article 14 sees if there was any fair application of the law [18].

Natural justice means you must be told what the case is about and given a chance to respond. Natural justice says that that fair chance will depend on the law and the situation. A hearing is not fair if the notice doesn’t name the land or the charge, if important documents are hidden, or if a final decision is made before objections are heard. Even if Maneka Gandhi’s case was not about Section 67 but Article 21, the Supreme Court’s decision shows the importance of fairness in processes.’

V. The Judicial Approach: Property and Procedural Fairness

A. Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P.[19]

In Rishipal Singh the Allahabad High Court looked at how Section 67 works in practice and how related rules apply. The case showed the danger of trusting a field report that was not properly checked of using measurements that’re not certain and of holding a proceeding where the person affected could not really challenge the evidence. The Court gave guidance on transparency, correct identification of the matter, sharing of information and affording the person a fair opportunity to respond.

The importance of Rishipal Singh is direct, not just similar. Rishipal Singh deals with the law that many alleged encroachment cases use. A revenue authority must make sure the first report is backed by an inspection that the land is measured correctly, so that the evidence needed is shown and that the final order deals with any objections. Rishipal Singh also shows that protecting land and fairness in procedure go together. A decision that is based on evidence is more likely to bring back public land in a lawful way and to survive a review.

B. Kamla Shankar Dubey v. State of U.P.[20]

In Kamla Shankar Dubey v. State of U.P. the Allahabad High Court cancelled orders that were made in Section 67 cases where the person did not get a chance to be heard and where the survey or boundary marking was missing. The Court used the rules set out in Rishipal Singh. The decision shows that procedural mistakes can matter a lot if they damage the facts that the claim is built on. If Kamla Shankar Dubey has not been clearly identified the authority may not be able to prove that the person used the public land covered by Section 67.

The Kamla Shankar Dubey case does not mean that every argument about measurements automatically stops an eviction case. The importance of Kamla Shankar Dubey is that facts that are disputed must be checked through the procedure and that the person must get a real chance to challenge the case before a negative order is made.

C. Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah[21]

In Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah the Supreme Court said that the constitution protects property with seven safeguards when land is taken for compulsory use. Those safeguards are a notice, a hearing, a reasoned decision, taking the land for a purpose fair compensation, a quick and smooth process and finishing the process so the land is transferred. The Supreme Court treated these safeguards as parts of Article 300A not just minor formalities.

The decision is an Art 300A case but it deals with compulsory acquisition under city law not with taking land from a village council. The rules about compensation and transfer of ownership do not automatically work in every Section 67 case. The bigger lesson from Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah is that taking away land must go through safeguards that fit the kind of action the state takes.

D. Vidya Devi and K.T. Plantation Case[22]

In Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh the Supreme Court denounced the State’s forced taking of property when it did not follow the required legal acquisition steps. The Supreme Court said that the State cannot take a person’s property just because it says it is for a public purpose. Vidya Devi is different from a removal of an unauthorized person from public land, but it strengthens the idea that executive action without a law is, against the constitution. K.T. Plantation also shows that Article 300-A is not a formality. The legal reason and the constitutional limits of taking land must be looked at. Together Vidya Devi and K.T. Plantation give a difference: the State can protect public land, but it must show the law that allows it and must follow the process that the law sets out.

VI. The Time of the Existence of a Procedural Irregularity

A. Jurisdiction and Statute Defects

A defect is fundamental when the authority does not have the power to Act the land is not covered by Section 67 or a legal rule required to be followed has not been followed[23]. In these Cases, the issue is not just that the process was not done properly; the legal power to take something away from a person may not exist all[24]. A good reason for taking action cannot fix a lack of power[25].

B. Denial of Notice or Sufficient Hearing

The process can be unfair if a notice is not given which clearly states what land is involved, or if a response is not listened to that is given within the time frame. The question is whether the person had the opportunity to find out what was going on and oppose the claim. A few misspellings that are not confusing can be dealt with differently than a notice that the plot number or prevents the person from preparing a response[26].

C. Unreliable. Ignored Evidence

A Section 67 order depends on showing that the land is covered by the law and that the person is not supposed to be. Wrong numbers for plots unclear lines, wrong maps or reports that are not checked can make that proof weak. Also ignoring papers can lead to a decision that is not based on the facts. The authority should explain why certain objections are accepted or rejected of just repeating the same claim in the final decision[27].

D. Reasons, Execution and Prejudice

A decision that explains the reasons should say what law was used what property is involved what was found about the person being without permission, how objections were handled and why any money or help was given. The decision itself and how it is carried out are two things. Taking something away soon not following a stop order or doing more than the law allows can cause a new problem.

The importance of a problem depends on the situation. Important questions include:

• Was the rule required?
• Did the problem stop the purpose from being achieved?
• Did the person get a chance to be part of the process?
• Did the mistake affect the identity of the land the power to act or the outcome?

Being harmed is important. It should not be so hard to prove that a person must show they would definitely win before they can challenge a fair process. Errors about power and basic fairness rules need to be checked carefully.

E. Practical Test

A court or higher court can ask the following questions:

1. Was the action allowed by law?
2. Was the land clearly. Shown to be covered by Section 67?
3. Was notice given?
4. Were papers and objections looked at?
5. Were reasons written down?
6. Was the action taken only after the process was completed?
7. Did the mistake. Create a real risk of taking something away unfairly?

The more a mistake affects power or basic fairness the the case for changing the decision or starting over.

Article 300-A does not give ownership to someone who is not allowed to be on land. It also does not protect wrongdoers from being removed. Its job is to require the State to show that it has a reason to act and to follow the steps needed to decide if the occupation is wrong.

VII. Recommendations

Authorities should use notices that say the village, the plot, the area the claim of being there and what will happen. Disputed lines should be checked with surveys or marking. The person affected should be able to see and argue about the papers used and final decisions should deal with objections instead of just copying what was in the report.

Revenue offices should keep all notices papers about who got them maps, complaints, decisions and papers about taking action in a record that can be checked. People who work there need to learn about Article 300-A fairness, land types and the records they make. Courts that review decisions should look at both the steps taken and the result and give the kind of help: a mistake in hearing might mean sending it back while acting without power might mean a bigger change.

VIII. Conclusion

Article 300A is still a limit on what the State can do. Even though the right to own land is no longer a right taking something away must still be done under a valid legal reason. Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006 has a purpose by letting action be taken against damage, misuse or wrong use of land given to local groups. That purpose does not mean that the rules can be ignored.

The main person in Uttar Pradesh, Rishipal Singh shows the need for surveys showing the facts and giving a real chance to argue the case; Kamla Shankar Dubey shows what happens when there is not enough chance to speak up and when lines are not clear. The Supreme Courts decisions in K.T. Plantation, Vidya Devi and Kolkata Municipal Corporation give the legal picture while also reminding people not to mix up taking land with removing people.

The right rule is not that every small mistake is very serious nor that any mistake about the process is not important just because it is, about land. A mistake becomes important when it affects power a rule that must be followed a chance to speak identification of the land or taking action correctly. Good surveys, clear notices, fair decisions and the right kind of help make the protection of land stronger not weaker.

IX. References

1. BA.LLB, School of Law Justice and Governance, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida [email protected].
2. INDIA CONST. arts. 14, 21, 226, 300A
3. Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, §§ 2, 34 (India)
4. INDIA CONST. art. 300A
5. Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, § 67 (U.P. Act No. 8 of 2012) (India)
6. Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016, rr. 66–67 (India)
7. Id.
8. State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 (India).
9. Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016, rr. 66–67 (India).
10. Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, §§ 2, 34 (India); INDIA CONST. art 300A;
11. K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1
12. Kolkata Municipal Corp. v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 INSC 435 (India).
13. Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569 (India).
14. INDIA CONST. art. 14; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).
15. INDIA CONST. art. 21 (India).
16. K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 (India).
17. Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, § 67 (U.P. Act No. 8 of 2012) (India).
18. INDIA CONST. art. 14 (India).
19. Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 6658 of 2022 (Allahabad High Court, Dec. 2, 2022).
20. Kamla Shankar Dubey v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ-C No. 33629 of 2025 (All. H.C. Sept. 24, 2025)
21. Kolkata Municipal Corp. v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 INSC 435 (India).
22. Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569 (India); Supra Note 15
23. Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, § 67 (U.P. Act No. 8 of 2012) (India).
24. INDIA CONST. art. 300A.
25. S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379 (India).
26. State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 (India)

A. Constitutional and Statutory Materials

• The Constitution of India.
• The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
• The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, U.P. Act No. 8 of 2012.
• The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

B. Cases

• T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1.
• Kamla Shankar Dubey v. State of U.P., 2024:AHC:171932 (Allahabad High Court Oct. 25, 2024).
• Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 INSC 435.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
• Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 829; 2023 (1) ADJ 154.
• Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569.

C. Online Case Sources

• Indian Kanoon, Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P., https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98618208/.
• Indian Kanoon, Kamla Shankar Dubey v. State of U.P., https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70682150/.
• Indian Kanoon, Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11565482/.

Written By: Somya Tyagi

• Landmark Supreme Court Judgements on FIR & Police Accountability
• Property As A Constitutional Right
• Dissenting from the Shadows: Why the Kerala High Court’s Ruling in The Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Sheela Francis Parakkal: Missteps on Writ Jurisdiction Against Private Banks
• Evolution of Eminent Domain in India
• Revenue Authorities Must Refrain from Parallel Proceedings When Civil Court is Seized of the Matter: J&K and Ladakh High Court