Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110360 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37784 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rampravesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aman Pandey,Shailesh Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Earlier the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter called as "the Code") was initiated against the petitioner, which terminated by the order of eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 67(5) of the Code. The said appeal was dismissed. 2. The petitioner preferred Writ-C No.15908 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of on 30.05.2023 with a direction to Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Sadar, Ghazipur to conduct a spot inspection and demarcate the land. The order passed by the coordinate Bench is extracted hereas under : "1. Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratan Deep Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the bhumidhar with transferable rights of Khasra plot no. 204 and 201, Village- Bantara, Pargana-Pachotar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Ghazipur. On 7.12.2019, a report was submitted by the area Lekhpal stating that the petitioner has illegally occupied 0.057 hectares of Khasra plot no. 203 admeasruing 0.0630 hectares, which is stated to be a public utility land of Khalihan. On the basis of the said report of the area Lekhpal, proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner being Case No. 05252/2019 (Gaon Sabha vs. Ram Pravesh Singh). 3. Petitioner participated in the aforesaid proceedings and submitted his objection stating therein that the land on which he has constructed his house is his land being Khasra Plot no. 204 and 201 and Khasra Plot no. 203 is on the north side of his house. The report dated 7.12.2019, as per the allegation of the petitioner, was submitted by the area Lekhpal in collusion with the Pradhan and without any measurement. After filing his objection, the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings further. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 18.10.2022 on the basis of report of the Lekhpal and spot inspection, recording a finding that the petitioner has unauthorizedly occupied the public utility land of Khasra plot no. 203 by constructing a house and on the basis of mere possession, title cannot be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the case was disposed of vide order dated 18.10.2022 directing eviction of the petitioner and recovery of Rs. 99,750/- towards damages. 4. Against the aforesaid order dated 18.10.2022, the petitioner filed an appeal on 24.01.2023 being Appeal no. 164 of 2023 (Ram Pravesh Singh vs. Gram Sabha), which was dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2023. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. In the appeal, the respondent no. 2 has recorded categorical finding on the basis of the records of the case that the petitioner has occupied 0.057 hectares out of 0.0630 hectares of Khasra plot no. 203 which is a public utility land-Khalihaan. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while initiating the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the respondent no. 3 has not complied with the provisions of Rule 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and no spot inspection/measurements have been made before passing the impugned order. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that enquiry as referred in Rule 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 is not mandatory and it is upon satisfaction of the Assistant Collector, if he is prima facie satisfied with the report of area Lekhpal, then he may initiate proceedings and from the perusal of the impugned orders, it is apparent that due opportunity was given to the petitioner and he has infact filed his objections and thereafter, he deliberately did not participate in the proceedings. The impugned orders have been passed after considering the objections of the petitioner and on the basis of the statement of the area Lekhpal as well as on the basis of spot inspection. In view thereof, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that his bhumidhari land may be demarcated and if, after demarcation of his land, any encroachment is found over Khasra Plot no. 203, he undertakes to remove the same forthwith. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the state submits that the aforesaid impugned orders have been passed after due spot inspection, therefore, no further proceedings are necessary in this case. 10. However, in the interest of justice and in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 3-Assistant Collector/Tehsildar Sadar, Ghazipur is directed to conduct a spot inspection and demarcate the land with due notice to the petitioner within a period of four weeks form the date of production of certified copy of this order, and if any construction of the petitioner is found over Khasra plot no. 203, the same shall be demolished forthwith. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of." 3. Pursuant to the direction of the coordinate Bench, the demarcation activity was carried out and a notice-cum-order dated 26.10.2024 was passed by the Revenue Inspector directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment within fifteen days. The said notice-cum-order is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the coordinate Bench has not quashed the order passed by the authorities under Section 67 of the Code or under Section 67(5) of the Code. Only direction was issued for demarcating the land on spot after inspection. 5. The notice-cum-order dated 26.10.2024 indicates that the petitioner has encroached upon the part of land of Gaon Sabha and direction has been issued to him to remove the said encroachment. 6. The writ petition assailing the said order is not maintainable. The petitioner has remedy of either filing appeal against the said order or approaching the Court concerned for getting the earlier order modified. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Kushal Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad