Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1266 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 134 of 2025 Petitioner :- Amol Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the State respondent has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5. In light of the limited controversy before this Court, with the consent of learned counsel for the State and Gaon Sabha, the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. Under challenge are the orders passed by the respondent no.1 under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dated 23.03.2023 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order passed by the Tehsildar, Sitapur dated 27.09.2021 under Section 67 of the Code, 2006. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disputed property i.e. plot no.751 measuring 0.089 hectares is recorded as Rasta in the revenue records. It is alleged that the petitioner has encroached upon the said Rasta and in order to remove the aforesaid encroachment the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 was initiated. It is urged that the petitioner had filed his defence, however, on account of certain miscommunication with the counsel the petitioner was not aware of the date fixed, as a result, the proceedings under Section 67 were practically decided exparte on 27.09.2021 whereby the eviction order also a penalty of Rs.8,400/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- was imposed on the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, however, even before the appellate court, the petitioner could not contest the appeal on merits and the exparte order dismissing the appeal was passed on 23.03.2023. It is urged that the petitioner had moved an application for recall as well as submitted the written submissions which were considered but did not find favour with the appellate court which passed the order dated 23.03.2023 affirming the eviction order dated 27.09.2021. It is urged that the petitioner has been residing in his house since decades and the petitioner has not encroached upon any part of the rasta which still continues unobstructed, however, this basic issue as to whether the petitioner has encroached upon some part of the rasta could only be determined after a proper inspection was made and provided that the petitioner is granted adequate opportunity to contest. It is, thus, urged that in the given circumstances, the petitioner may be granted an opportunity to present his case and, in any case, if it is found that the petitioner has encroached upon the rasta, then he is ready to remove the same. Learned Standing counsel as well as the counsel for the Gaon Sabha could not dispute the fact that the petitioner was not granted adequate opportunity. Even though, it is urged that there were several opportunities to the petitioner which he has not availed but the fact remains that the proceedings have been done behind his back. Considering this aspect of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it will be appropriate to remit the matter to the Tehsildar concerned who would after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall decide the matter afresh on the basis of material produced by the petitioner in support of his defence. It is also made clear that in case, if the petitioner does not cooperate, in such circumstances, the court concerned shall be well within its rights to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- with the Court of Tehsildar, as security to ensure that he does not misuse the liberty, which is granted. In case, after the proceedings are taken to its logical conclusion and if the order is passed against the petitioner, then the amount deposited shall be utilized only for recovery of the penalty and the excess amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned orders dated 27.09.2021 and 23.03.2023 are set aside. The matter shall stand restored on the Board of the Tehsildar where the petitioner and the parties concerned shall appear on 20.01.2025. By the next date i.e 20.01.2025, the petitioner shall deposit the sum with the Court of Tehsildar. The Tehsildar concerned shall expedite the proceedings so that the entire proceedings be decided within a period of six weeks from the date parties appear before the said Court. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the merits of the defence as raised by the petitioner and the orders impugned have been set aside only on the ground of non providing an adequate opportunity to contest. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench