Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14792 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2382 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kushendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anita,Aditya Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 3 while notice on behalf of opposite party no.4 has been accepted by Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, Advocate. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code declaring petitioner to be a trespasser over Gaon Sabha land. Also under challenge is the order dated 21.06.2024 passed in appeal under Section 67 (5) of the Code. 3. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. A perusal of impugned orders will make it evident that plot in question bearing Gata No. 734 having an area 1.165 hectares in the village in question has been held to be Gaon Sabha land on the ground that it was earlier declared to be surplus under ceiling proceedings and petitioner is a trespasser thereupon. The said findings recorded under Section 67 of the Code has thereafter been reiterated in appeal. 4. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal as well as paragraphs 6 to 10 of the writ petition makes it evident that petitioner also admits the fact that plot in question is recorded as ceiling land in the name of State in revenue records. 5. There is no averment by petitioner nor any admission that the said plot was ever allotted to petitioner by competent authority, being Collector of the District. The only plea taken is that petitioner being a landless person has been permitted to cultivate the said land by oral directions of the then Pradhan, if petitioner is found to be landless of the same village. 6. Considering the admission made by petitioner, the aspect of him being trespasser whose State property is clearly borne out due to which no interference is required to be made in impugned orders. 7. However, petitioner is granted liberty to file an appropriate application before the opposite party no.2 i.e. Collector, Hardoi for allotment of any State property which may be permissible in accordance with law. 8. With subject to said directions, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench