Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42424 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6904 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prem Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey for respondent No.4 Gaon Sabha. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 27.12.2024 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Salon, District Raebareli wherein he has rejected the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 67 of U.P. Land Revenue Code and passed orders for his eviction from gata No.317/0.057 hectare situated at Village Gauwa, Pargana and Tehsil Salon, District Raebareli and also imposing fine of Rs.14300/- as well as execution expended of Rs.1000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 67 (5) which has also been rejected by the Collector, Raebareli by means of order dated 17the April, 2025. In the present petition both the orders dated 17.4.2025 and 27.12.2024 are under challenge. 3. It has been submitted that the dispute in the present case relates to gata No.317/0.057 hectare which is recorded as Naveen Parti in the revenue records and accordingly is gaon sabha land over which the petitioner has constructed pucca house and is occupying the same. According to the petitioner in the objections filed by him before the Tehsildar he has stated that the construction was made by his ancestor, namely, Kali prior to coming into operation of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and even the said fact is available on record as per CH form 11 but subsequently due to clerical error during consolidation operations it was recorded as Naveen Parti and it is on aforesaid objections that he had challenged the notice issued to him. 4. The Tehsildar (Judicial), Salon duly considered the objections filed by the petitioner and found that the disputed land is registered as Naveen Parti and no application has been filed to rectify the revenue records and finding that the petitioner has, in fact, occupied and was in possession of the gaon sabha land passed order for eviction as well as imposing penalty by means of order dated 27.12.2024. 5. In the appellate proceedings also the same grounds were reiterated. The appellate authority also considered the report of the Circle Lekhpal dated 25.3.2021 where it was recorded that the petitioner has encroached upon the gaon sabha land which is recorded as Naveen Parti existing on gata No.317 are 0.057 hectare. He has further found that no satisfactory explanation was submitted by the petitioner with regard to ownership and title in the disputed land and accordingly rejected the appeal upholding the findings recorded by Tehsildar (Judicial) Salon. 6. Before this Court, the petitioner has reiterated the same grounds raised before the authorities below. 7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition stating that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and further submitted that there is no dispute that part of the house of the petitioner is at gaon sabha land which is illegal and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have heard the rival contentions. It is noticed that the petitioner has taken several grounds in his defence including the fact that name of Kali, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was duly recorded in CH Form 11 and in case it was his case then evidence in this regard should have been produced before the authorities below but it seems that there is no evidence available in this regard with the petitioner nor could be produced before the authorities below and even before this Court no form or document has been shown indicating that the said land was recorded in CH Form 11. 9. The second ground is that the land was wrongly recorded as Naveen Parti. In case, this was the grievance of the petitioner then it was open for him to have initiated appropriate proceedings to rectify the revenue records but undoubtedly no such proceedings have been undertaken by him and there is no dispute that presently the land is recorded in the revenue records as Naveen Parti, which is a public utility land and, hence, from the aforesaid we do not find any illegality in the orders under challenge and accordingly no ground for interference is made out. 10. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 24.7.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench