Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16076 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1349 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manna Lal @ Munna Lal Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Chandra,Ishan Singh Popli Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private- respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:- "i. Set aside the Order dated 31/01/2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Unnao, in Appeal No.3113 of 2024 titled as Manna Lal Vs State of U.P. and another, a certified copy of which is contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition. ii. Set aside the order dated 07/09/2024 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class/Tehsildar- Hasanganj, Unnao in Case No.06110/2018 titled as Gram Sabha VS Manna Lal, a certified copy of which is contained in Annexure No.2 to this petition. iii. Direct the opposite parties from not interfering in the peaceful possession and occupation of the petitioner over Khasra No.390 over which his house is constructed." By the order dated 07.09.2024, the opposite party No.3-Tehsildar, Hasanganj, Unnao directed the revenue official(s) to evict the petitioner from Gata No.424 area .0095 hect. and imposed fine of Rs. 30,875/- as compensation. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the said order dated 07.09.2024 before the District Magistrate Unnao, by filing an appeal. The District Magistrate, Unnao, has rejected the appeal and confirmed the order dated 07.09.2024 passed by the opposite party no.3, vide its order dated 31.01.2025. Challenging the impugned order(s), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure, which ought to have been followed by the opposite party No.3 at the time of passing of final order in the proceedings instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006, was not followed. He also stated that the report of Lekhpal should be proved and unproved report can not be relied upon. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.6430 of 2023 (Shatrohan vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others). It is further submitted that a perusal of the impugned order(s) would show that without following the procedure as indicated by this Court in the judgment, referred above, the opposite party No.3 passed the order dated 07.09.2024, which was affirmed by the impugned order dated 31.01.2025. As such, the indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. Learned counsel appearing for side opposite could not dispute the principle settled by this Court while dealing with the proceedings instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including the order dated 07.09.2024 passed by the opposite party No.3 and the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the opposite party No.2. From the impugned order dated 07.09.2024 it appears that the procedure, as indicated by this Court in the judgment referred above, was not followed while deciding the case instituted under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 by opposite party No.3 affirmed by the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 31.01.2025, who also failed to take note of the fact that while passing the order dated 07.09.2024 the opposite party No.3 has not followed the procedure prescribed. Thus, to the view of this Court, the interference is required in the matter. Accordingly, the order(s) dated 31.01.2025 and 07.09.2024 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the opposite party No.3-Tehsildar, Hasanganj, Unnao to conclude the proceedings afresh, strictly in terms of law laid down by this Court in the judgment, referred above, within a period of three months as statutory provisions says that the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 ought to have been concluded within a period of 90 days. For concluding the proceedings, the opposite party No.3 shall not provide any adjournment to the petitioner and in case, the petitioner fails to appear on the date fixed, then in that event, the authority concerned is at liberty to proceed ex- parte, however, in the light of the law laid down by this Court and conclude the proceedings within a period of three months. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Jyoti/- Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench