HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8685 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was subjected to proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for having illegally occupying the land being Gata No. 1322/0.3670 hectares, situated in Village - Bahar, Pargana - Gopamau, Tehsil and District - Hardoi, which is recorded as "Kalihan" in the revenue records. 3. It is on the aforesaid land that 28 square meters of the land has been encroached upon by the petitioner on which construction has been raised by him. Despite notice having been served upon the petitioner, he did not participate in the proceedings and consequently by means of ex-parte order dated 17.04.2021, orders for eviction and imposition of penalty were passed against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 17.04.2021, preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue). Before the appellate authority only ground taken by the petitioner is that he was not afforded opportunity of hearing. 5. In the entire memo of appeal, there is no averment regarding ownership and title with regard to disputed land and accordingly the appellate authority after considering the entire material on record has relied upon the report of the revenue inspector in which it was stated that petitioner has illegally encroached upon Gata No. 1322/0.3670 hectares which is recorded as Gaon Sabha land. 6. This Court has further found that despite issuance of notice by the trial Court, petitioner did not appear nor had he filed objections. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was also noticed that a writ petition was filed before this Court by a private individual Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Kumar Singh, Vivek Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Pawan Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., U.P. And Others .....Respondent(s) being Writ Petition No. 2974 of 2023, where this Court had directed the trial Court to expedite the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and accordingly the Additional Commissioner did not find any ground for interfering in the order of Tehsildar and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 7. The petitioner while assailing both the aforesaid orders has only stated that he was not given any opportunity of hearing. This Court has carefully perused both the impugned orders as well as writ petition. From the averments made by the petitioner as well as from the memo of writ petition this Court do not find any where that the petitioner has attempted to show that his occupation over the disputed land had any semblance of legality. In the appeal he has only stated that house was built by his grand father which is existing there for extremely long length of time, but no period has been mentioned and it has not been stated that in case it was owned and occupied by his grand father, whether any patta was granted to him or some find mention in any of the revenue records. 8. Apart from the above, this Court finds that it has been admitted by the petitioner himself that his house is existing on the disputed land. 9. This Court further find that in the report of Lekhpal it is mentioned that disputed land is recorded as "Khalihan" which is Gaon Sabha land and accordingly, petitioner does not have any right to make any encroachment or raise constructions over the Gaon Sabha land. 10. In the light of above, this Court do not find any infirmity in the orders impugned. The writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. September 11, 2025 A. Verma WRIC No. 8685 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench