Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40323 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6362 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Shukla,Alok Kr. Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Rahul Kumar Shukla,Shivam Srivastava Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3 and Shri Rahul Kumar Shukla, learned counsel on behalf of respondents no.5 and 6. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a pucca house situated at Gata No.95-Kha at Village Kishundaspur, Pargana & Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda while adjacent to the said land is Gata No.100 which has been given on patta in favour of the respondents no.5 to 8. It is the case of the petitioner that the sahan is existing on Gata No.100 and in case, the respondents no. 5 to 8 are allowed to make constructions as per the letter of allotment of patta. There is interfere in the possession of the sahan land of the petitioner and in the aforesaid circumstances, he had moved an application under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code for cancellation of the patta in favour of the private respondents. The petitioner in his compliant has stated that the entire area of Gata No.100/0.028 hectare which falls in category of 5-1 and is agricultural land prescribed as Naveen Parti and a part of the said land has been used for constructions of road and on the remaining portion exists the sahan of the petitioner. He has further stated that the private respondents are ineligible for being granted the patta inasmuch as they have been sufficient land already allotted to them and also that they are related to each other and are in service, therefore are eligible for the allotted said land. 3. The District Magistrate, Gonda while considering the application of the petitioner had called for a report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Manakapur, who submitted the same on 31.10.2023. In his report, he has stated that the said land was lying vacant due to which it was being used to tie the cattle and the petitioner has substantial land apart from the said lands situated at Gata No.100 and has also a pucca house. He has further submitted that in front of his house, there is a road through which the petitioner is using and it cannot be said that the allotment is creating any interference in his right to ingress or approach the said house. 4. Apart from the above, he further recorded that the nature of the land is naveen parti. The petitioner does not have any right or interest on the said land and accordingly, did not find any ground to interfere. 5. In the inquiry report, it was also stated that none of the members of the family of the allottees are in government service and they do not have any land recorded in their name. Accordingly, the application under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code was rejected by the District Magistrate, Gonda. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order had filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration)-II, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda. In his revision, he has stated all the issues raised before the District Magistate and the revisional authority duly considering the entire facts of the case has also recorded the findings based on the physical inspection of the said land and found that the sahan of the petitioner would not exist on the entire Gata No.100 and that he has sufficient land even behind the house for the purposes of sahan and also that a kutcha road exists from the P.W.D road to his house which curves from his house and proceeds further which is sufficient for his ingress and egress from the said house. 6. 6. He further recorded the fact that in the inquiry, it was found that the allotment in favour of the private respondents was in accordance with law and they are not in any government service nor do have any land in their name. Consequently, there was no infirmity in the allotment granted in their favour and accordingly, rejected the revision. 7. The petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Gata No.100 is sahan land could not have been subject to allotment and reiterated the grounds raised by him before the authority concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand opposed the petition. He has submitted that there is no error in the process of allotment and no document or evidence was filed by the petitioner indicating either of the respondents were in government service or they have any other lands due to which he was ineligible for being allotted the Gaon Sabha land. The only ground raised by the petitioner is with regard to the sahan existing in Gata No.100. In this regard also, he has examined the report of Lekhpal and finds that such a huge area of land could not have been allowed to be retain as a sahan in light of the provision of Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. Apart from which, he finds that there were sufficient land behind the house of the petitioner which can be used as a sahan. 9. Apart from the above, I find that a road is already existing on Gata No.99 and 100 which connects the house of the petitioner to the P.W.D. road and accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no right is being interfered with by the respondents making allotments in favour of the private respondents. 10. In case, the petitioner seeks to claim title with regard to the sahan land, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court where such a declaration as sought by the petitioner in this proceeding can be passed. The proceedings under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code are limited only to looking into the validity of the allotment made by the petitioner. In this regard, I find that except making bold assertions with regard to the ineligibility of the private respondents, no material or evidence was adduced by him indicating them ineligibility and Consequently, I do not find any finding returned by the authority below required any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereny dismissed. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 15.7.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench