Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45004 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7216 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bachchhan Lal Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Tushar Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in the proceeding U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner for encroaching upon the gaon sabha land situated at Gata No. 409/0.101 hectare situated in Village Nautala, Pargana - Fakaharpur Tehsil Mahsi, District Bahraich. 3. In the proceeding before the Tehsildar ex-parte orders were passed on 21.01.2025 holding that petitioner has encroached upon the gaon sabha land and he was directed to be evicted from the said land along with imposition of penalty. The petitioner had filed an appeal U/S 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code before the ADM(Finance and Revenue), Bahraich which has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 30.06.2025 on the ground of maintainability. 4. The appellate authority was of the view that in case the order of eviction dated 21.01.2025 has been passed ex-parte then the petitioner has sufficient opportunity to file an application for recall as per proviso to Section 209 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in case the appeal would not be maintainable. 5. Despite holding that the appeal was not maintainable the appellate authority further proceeded to decide the case on merits holding that the petitioner has encroached upon the gaon sabha land recorded as Khalihan. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in case the appeal was not maintainable then there was no question of deciding the case on merits and merely on account of maintainability the appeal would have been dismissed. He further submits that he is ready and willing to file an application for recall against the order of Tehsildar dated 21.01.2025. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 8. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that petitioner is relegated of filing an application for recall U/S 209 of U.P. Revenue Code , 2006 but instead of filing a recall application, he preferred an appeal U/S 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code and accordingly this Court does not find any infirmity in this regard in the impugned order dated 30.06.2025. While on the other hand in case the appeal was not maintainable, this court does not find there are any relevance or jurisdiction for the appellate authority to have decided the case on merits. 9. Accordingly, without disturbing findings pertaining to the maintainability of the appeal the other observations and findings against the petitioner on merits are set aside. The petitioner is relegated to the remedy of filling an application of recall against the order of the Tehsildar dated 25.01.2025. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is further provided that in case the petitioner files an application for recall, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, say, within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is produced before him in accordance with law, in case there is no legal impediment. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench