Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2630 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 347 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sandeep Bajpai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arjun Singh Somvanshi 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 respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.4. Under challenge is the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code, 2006'), as a consequence, the order passed by the respondent No.3 has been affirmed and the eviction order plus penalty and cost has been imposed against the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is based on the material which were not part on the record. It is urged that the petitioner had specifically sought the benefit of Section 67(A) of the Code, 2006 which though considered but has been rejected on the grounds which were not part of the record that is to say that it is alleged that the petitioner was undertaking residential and commercial activity from the land in question, however, there is nothing to indicate that what sort of commercial activity was being done. It is further submitted that the order is bad inasmuch as it does not take note of the fact that the house of the petitioner constructed on the disputed land for more than 40 years and in any case prior to 29.11.2012 and in such circumstances, it has not been considered as to why the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 67(A) of the Code, 2006 which was specifically pleaded and raised before the Court below and in order to substantiate the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the objections filed by the petitioner and available on record as Annexure No.6. Learned standing counsel for the State-respondents as well as learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha have submitted that the fact whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 67(A) of the Code, 2006 is to be considered in light of the provisions of the Code, 2006. However, as per the instructions received by them and the reasons given in the impugned order, there is variance. It is, thus, contended that instead of keeping the matter pending before this Court, it will be appropriate if this issue can be reconsidered in light of the evidence available on record and to that extent if the matter is remanded, they shall have no objection. Considering the aforesaid submissions as well as the stand taken by the State and the Gaon Sabha, apparently it could not be established as to on what basis the petitioner has been denied the benefit of Section 67(A) of the Code, 2006 inasmuch as the grounds which are reflected in the impugned order are not corroborated by the material available on record. In view of the consensus arrived at between the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 21.10.2024 and 10.06.2024 shall stand set aside. The parties shall appear before the respondent No.3 on 04.02.2025 where the matter shall stand restored to its original number. The parties shall lead their specific evidence in respect of the plea raised by the petitioner under Section 67(A) of the Code, 2006 and after taking note of the aforesaid, the respondent No.3 shall return a specific finding and decide the matter afresh. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the validity of the respective plea of the parties which in any case shall be decided by the respondent No.3 on the basis of the evidence before it and endeavour shall be made to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date, the parties appear before the respondent No.3. It is also provided that in case if any of the parties attempt to misuse the liberty, the Court concerned shall be free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench