Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48665 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7056 of 2025 Petitioner :- Madarasa Mohmadiya Garib Nawaz Thru.President Mo.Kamruddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Asthana, Santi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who has handed over the instructions across the Bar, which is taken on record. . 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the recovery certificate issued against the petitioner purporting to recover an amount of Rs.80,190/- with a threat that in case, the amount is not deposited within a period of fifteen days or the offending constructions are not received, action shall be taken in accordance with law. 3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that without adopting any procedure for adjudication, the order of recovery has been issued. 4. Standing Counsel has produced the instructions stating that the order has been passed quantifying the amount of penalty based upon the prescriptions contained in Section 67(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rules 67(2) and 67(4) of the said Rules. A copy of the Act and the Rules have also been annexed along with the instructions, which clearly prescribed that Section 67 of the Act empowers the Additional Collector, to take steps for removal of the offending constructions, which requires the issuance of a show cause notice and after considering the reply, an order can be passed for eviction as well as for recovery of the rents. Rule 67 lays down the procedure in which, the procedure shall be adopted for passing an order of ejectment and recovery. In terms of the instructions received, none of the said procedure has been followed. 5. Considering the fact that the instructions are insisted upon by the Standing Counsel, no useful purpose would be served in directing the State to file a counter affidavit. 6. On perusal of the instructions as well as the recovery certificate, the issuance of recovery certificate without adopting the procedure of adjudication is clearly not prescribed under law, as such, the order of recovery, contained in Annexure no.1, is quashed with direction that no order of recovery shall be passed till, an adjudicatory process prescribed under Section 67 of the code along with the rules is not followed. 7. With the said observations, the petition is allowed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 VNP/- Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench