Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3135 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 338 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Sahu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Shanker Tewari,Ajay Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1,2 and 3 has been accepted by the ofÏce of learned Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally, at the admission stage without calling for counter afÏdavit. 4. Under challenge is the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by respondent no.2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ( hereinafter referred as "Code of 2006") as a result the order dated 30.9.2024 passed by respondent no.3 in proceedings under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 has been afÏrmed whereby an order of eviction as well as sum of Rs.1,23,750/- as penalty has been imposed alongwith cost of Rs.100/-. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the Code of 2006. The petitioner had filed his objections indicating that no proper compliance was made by the authorities while dealing with the issue in question. It was falsely alleged that the petitioner had illegally encroached upon plot no.251. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed their objections indicating that his tube-well was situate on his own plot and the same was also noticed by the consolidation authorities at the time the village was under consolidation operations. It was further averred that no proper notice was given to the petitioner to contest coupled with the fact that the plea was raised by the petitioner seeking the benefit of Section 67-A of the Code of 2006 which was also not considered. 7. It is also stated that neither proper evidence was led on behalf of the State to establish its own case rather in haste the proceedings have been concluded against the petitioner without there being any proper material on record and the petitioner was also deprived of a reasonable opportunity of hearing resulting in sheer miscarriage of justice. 8. It is further urged that the aforesaid issues were raised before the first appellate court, however, the same was also not considered and the appeal was dismissed by means of order dated 13.12.2024. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in absence of any proper material, evidence on record and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it was not open for the respondent no.3 to have passed order dated 13.12.2024 under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 and even the appeal has been dismissed without examining the contentions raised by the petitioner in appeal. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed. 10. The learned Standing Counsel as well as the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha have attempted to support the impugned order, however could not dispute the fact that the contentions plea raised by the petitioner regarding non grant of adequate opportunity of hearing as well as the fact that the petitioner has his own boring over the land in question which was noticed by the consolidation authorities apart from the fact that the Lekhpal who is alleged to have visited the property and made a spot inspection was also not examined. Another aspect that requires consideration that once the petitioner had raised his objections, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have noticed the same and decide it in accordance with law. 11. Merely to say that the disputed plot is part of pond land over which no right can accrue, hence the order has been passed but the fact remains that whether the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of disputed plot no.251 or he is in occupation of his own Bhumidhari plot over which he has his own boring for irrigation could only be ascertained after proper inspection and survey which apparently is not reflected from the record. 12. Considering this aspect of the matter that the contentions raised by the petitioner, have not been considered while passing the impugned orders, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 30.9.2024 cannot be sustained as it is also contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 22.7.2024 passed in the case of Writ-C No.4823 of 2024 : Abdul Rasheed @ Rashid Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others as well as judgement in the case of Rishi Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2022 SCC Online All. 829. Also noticing the fact that already the demarcation proceedings were initiated by the petitioner and its impact has not been seen specially where the petitioner claims his rights over plot no.264 which is his bhumidhari plot. 13. In view of the above, impugned orders dated 30.9.2024 and 13.12.2024 are hereby set aside. The proceedings shall stand restored on the board of respondent no.3 where the parties shall appear on 17.2.2025. Respondent no.3 shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties and after making fresh inspection in presence of the parties by intimating due date and time, shall decide the matter, afresh, strictly in accordance with law, after permitting the parties to lead their evidence, within a period of six weeks the date the parties appear before respondent no.3. 14. It is also made clear that in case if the petitioner does not cooperate with the proceedings, the authorities will be well within its rights to decide the matter in accordance with law. 15. It is further clarified that the court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the impugned orders have been set aside only on the ground of non compliance of the mandatory conditions as well as the procedural errors. 16. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench