Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40734 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6738 of 2025 Petitioner :- Parashuram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Kuldeep Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1.Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Kuldeep, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for State-respondent No.s 1 to 4 and Sri Pankaj Gupta on behalf of respondent No.5- Gaon Sabha. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution being aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Ikauna, Shravasti under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code and also the appellate order dated 31.5.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Shravasti rejecting the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the order dated 23.10.2024. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to gata No.313 Mi area 0.328 hectare/new gata No.562 area 0.328 hectare situated in Village Tilakpur, Tehsil and District Bahraich which, according to the petitioner, was granted to him by patta. Subsequently, on grant of the said patta, the petitioner has constructed a pucca house over the said land. He further submits that the proceedings for cancellation of the patta were undertaken on the basis of a complaint given by certain persons belonging to the scheduled caste. It was alleged that the patta was given for agricultural purposes and the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the patta and constructed house and consequently patta granted to the petitioner was cancelled under Rule 115 (O) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by cancellation of the patta had approached this Court by filing Miscellaneous Singh writ petition No.6054 of 2010 which was decided on 29.8.2017 where this Court observed that "Learned counsel of the petitioner could not rebut the findings recorded by the Courts below. But it seems that on the argument of the petitioner liberty was granted to him that in case the land could be exchanged under Section 101 of U.P. Revenue Code he may submit an application before the competent authority. Protection from demolition was granted to the petitioner for a period of three months and liberty was also granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. From the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court dated 29.8.2017, it is clear that the petitioner could not defend successfully the order of cancellation of the patta before this Court and once it was found that cancellation of the patta was legal and valid, the petitioner did not have any right to occupy the land on which patta was cancelled. There is no averment or material on record that the application of the petitioner for exchange of the land was successful or that the said land was exchanged with another land because this Court is of the considered view that in case patta is cancelled by the State Government then such a land cannot be the subject matter of exchange, considering the fact that the petitioner cannot exchange the land which is not recorded in his name with any other land belonging to gaon sabha or any other bhumidhari land. 6. As per the judgment of this Court dated 19.8.2017, notice under Section 67of Revenue Code, the orders was served upon the petitioner and proceedings under Section 67 were initiated. The Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Ikauna relied upon the report of Circle Lekhpal stating that gata No.562 was recorded as 'banjar' in the revenue records. This land is recorded for public utility and the petitioner and his family have illegally used the said land and made pucca constructions over the same. Accordingly orders was passed for eviction and imposition of penalty of Rs.2200/- on the petitioner. In the appeal also the same facts were stated and was rejected by means of order dated 31.5.2025. Both the final orders have been challenged in the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same arguments as raised before the authorities below. He has annexed copy of the patta but undoubtedly as per his own averments made in the present petition and also informed the judgment of this Court in the previous petition bearing No.6054 (M/S) 2010, the said patta stood cancelled there is no order available on record setting aside the order of cancellation of the patta. Once the patta granted to the petitioner has been cancelled he does not have any right or title over the said patta and would be a stranger on the said land. 8.Apart from the above, we find that the said land is recorded as banjar in the revenue records, which is a public utility land and consequently proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner had participated in the said proceedings but his objections were rejected after holding that the petitioner was in illegal occupation of the said land and had encroached upon the gaon sabha land. Accordingly, after considering the rival contentions, findings were recorded against the petitioner and even the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no doubt that the said land is a public utility land on which the petitioner does not have any right, title or interest. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below. For the reasons above, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench