Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39893 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6521 of 2025 Petitioner :- Radheshyam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manuvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Manuvendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code, 2006") were initiated against petitioner. In the said proceedings notices were issued to the petitioner, but he did not participate in the said proceedings, which resulted in passing of final order dated 11.04.2022, by the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Unchahar, wherein he relied upon the report of the Tehsildar. He has concluded that the petitioner had illegally encroached upon the property belonging to Gaon Sabha which was recorded as Khalihan, situated at Gata No. 1093/1.2580 hectares out of which petitioner had encroached upon 0.0650 hectares. On the said land allegations were that petitioner had made permanent structure illegally and arbitrarily despite being duly served he appeared in the proceedings and moved an application on 28.05.2019 but did not participated in the proceedings thereafter and the matter proceeded ex-parte resulting in order dated 11.04.2022, wherein penalty of Rs.89700/- was imposed upon the petitioner and he was further directed to be evicted from the said land. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 11.04.2022 petitioner preferred an application for recall and the said application came to be listed on 28.01.2025, on which date after hearing both the parties, the application for recall was rejected. 4. The petitioner thereafter, filed an appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the District Magistrate, Raebareily which was registered as Case No. 310 of 2025. The appellate Court duly considered the aspect of the matter that petitioner was not granted adequate opportunity of hearing. After considering entire arguments raised on behalf of petitioner the appellate Court returned finding that it was the petitioner who deliberately and willfully did not participate in the proceedings inasmuch as notices ere duly served upon him and he moved an application on 28.05.2019 in the Court and remained present during the proceedings but did not participate in the said proceedings resulting in the order dated 11.04.2022, accordingly, it was concluded that despite having given adequate opportunity of hearing, petitioner did not availed of the same and even before the appellate authority could not demonstrate his right or title in the disputed land and accordingly, dismissed and appeal. 5. The petitioner has assailed orders dated 11.04.2022 and 28.01.2025, passed by the Additional Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Unchahar, Raibareli as well as order dated 17.04.2025, passed by the District Collector, Raibareli, in the present writ petition. 6. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Unchahar, Raibareli on various grounds pointing infirmities in the same, but could not satisfactorily explain to this Court as to why he did not participate in the proceedings before Additional Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Unchahar, Raibareli. The petitioner has not even denied the fact that before the Additional Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Unchahar, Raibareli, he as duly served with notice and was also present during the proceedings and also moved an application on 28.05.2019, but did not participated in the proceedings or adduced any evidence with regard to his right and title over the land on which he has allegedly encroached upon namely Gata No. 1093/1.2580 hectares, situated at Village - Mahua Majre Gangauli, Pargana - Salon, Tehsil - Unchahar, District - Raebareily. 7. Even in the present proceedings there is no averment in the petition with regard to his non participation in the proceedings before the Additional Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Unchahar, Raibareli. When a pointed query has been made to the petitioner with regard to evidence regarding his right and title over the land which belongs to Gaon Sabha on which petitioner has allegedly encroached upon, no response is forthcoming. 8. There is no denial of the fact that the disputed land is recorded as Khalihan which belongs to Gaon Sabha and being so, the petitioner has clearly encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land and it is for this reason he did not participate in the proceedings before the Additional Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Unchahar, Raibareli under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and even before this Court no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming with regard to his encroachment upon the Gaon Sabha land. 9. Accordingly, this Court do not find any infirmity in the order of the Additional Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Unchahar, Raibareli under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 nor in the order of the District Magistrate under Section 67(5) of the Code, 2006, whereby appeal of the petitioner has been rejected after recording the fact that despite adequate opportunity having been given to the petitioner, he failed to participate in the same or adduce any evidence and further that petitioner has not been able to demonstrate his title over the said land. 10. Copy of Civil Suit No. 756/98 has been annexed alongwith the writ petition. From the perusal of which this Court finds that neither Gaon Sabha is party nor do we find the details of the land pertaining to which decree was passed by the Court of Civil Court (Junior Division), Dalmau, Raibareily. In the aforesaid circumstances, said decree will not be deemed to confer any right to the petitioner with regard to land in question, which was subject matter of proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006. 11. Lastly, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others - Writ - C No. 6658 of 2022 (alongwith other connected matters) decided on 02.12.2022. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable with the facts of the case discussed in the case of Rishipal Singh (supra), as the petitioner in that case has participated in the proceedings and also staked their claim over the disputed land, stating that the land has been settled with the petitioners therein long time ago, but in the present case, this Court could not find that petitioner herein has staked any claim to the land in question and even has not filed any document with regard to the same. 12. In view of above, present writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench