Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6300 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 838 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vaheed Khan @ Vaheed Respondent :- Collector, Hardoi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Farhan Alam Osmany Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondent. Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Gaon Sabha. Learned Standing counsel has provided written instructions to the Court for perusal which is taken on record. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition is being decided at the admission stage itself. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the District Collector Hardoi in Appeal no.67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated 09.08.2024 passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby an order of eviction was passed in respect of plot no.761 and a sum of Rs.780/- has been imposed as penalty. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is recorded owner of his plot nos.762 and 763 situated in Harpura, Pargana, Kachhandau Tehsil Bilgram District Hardoi. It is further urged that the proceedings have taken behind the back of the petitioner in respect of plot no.761 and it is alleged that the petitioner has encroached upon the same. It is urged that the petitioner has not raised any construction on the public utility land i.e. plot no.761 and his constructions is standing on his own Bhumidhari plot. It is urged that the proceedings were exparte before the respondent no.2. Though a specific ground was taken in the memo of appeal but the same has not been considered by the first appellate court and it has merely reiterated the stand as taken by the respondent no.3 while dismissing the appeal and as such the petitioner has been prevented by sufficient cause in putting forth his own contentions. Accordingly, the petition assailing the two orders deserves to be allowed. Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Tomar learned Standing counsel appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner was granted opportunity to place his contentions, however, he did not participate in the proceedings which led the matter to be decided by the respondent no.2. It is further urged that the Lekhpal had made the measurement and found that the construction of the petitioner was on plot no.761 which was a public utility land recorded as 'Navin Parti', accordingly, the orders impugned cannot be said to be bad. However, he could not dispute the fact that the Lekhpal who is alleged to have made an inspection did not inform the petitioner about the date and time of the inspection. Apparently, even when the petitioner had raised the aforesaid issue before the first appellate court that has also not been taken note of and merely because the proceedings were decided exparte, the first appellate court reiterated the same without considering the fact that in absence of any proper measurement and inspection whether the disputed constructions are on the plot of the petitioner which are the Bhumidhari plot or public utility land requires consideration. In view of the controversy involved and without there being a clear report regarding the fact that the existing constructions are on the plot of the petitioner or on the plot no.761 which is recorded as 'Navin Parti' requires to be adjudicated. In this view of the matter, this Court sets aside the orders dated 09.08.2024 and 29.11.2024. The proceedings shall stand restored with the respondent no.2, where the petitioner shall appear on 17.02.2025. From that point onwards, the respondent no.2 shall after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties including allowing the petitioner to file his objections and then get the spot reinspected in presence of the petitioner by informing him of the date and time and shall proceed strictly in accordance with law as laid down by the Court in Rishipal Singh vs State of U.P. and others; 2022 SCC Online All 829 and decide the matter preferably within ten weeks from the date the parties appear before the respondent no.2. It is made clear that despite notice if the petitioner does not cooperate, the authority concerned shall be well within their rights to proceed with the matter and decide the same strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that the impugned orders have been set aside only on the ground of not affording any opportunity to the parties and the Court has not examined the merits of plea of either of the parties. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 30.1.2025/Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench