Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44675 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7271 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. HeardSri Chandra Prakash Verma, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that proceedings U/S 66 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner for having illegally encroached upon land situated at Gata No. 1146/0.030 hect. Village Sakin Pargana Gopamau Tehsil Sadar District Hardoi and in the said proceedings initially the orders were passed on 16.08.2017 where orders for eviction was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Hardoi who by means of order dated 30.01.2018 allowed the appeal and remanded the mater back to the competent authority for being decided a fresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. It is in the remand proceedings that the petitioner appeared and filed his objections stating that on the disputed land he had a house existing from the time of his ancestors but it seems he did not file any evidence or any documents with regard to the said occupation. Subsequently the petitioner stopped appearing in the proceedings and the matter was decided on 03.08.2021 holding that as per report of the Regional Lekhpal the petitioner has encroached upon the gaon sabha land situated at Gata No. 1146 which is recorded as pasture land and on the contrary there was no evidence filed by the petitioner which could justify his occupation and accordingly passed orders for eviction. 4. The petitioner again approached the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) by filing an appeal U/S 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. In the appellate proceedings all the evidence taken by the petitioner were considered. With regard to the objection that the Lekhpal had not tendered evidence in the trial proceedings which was found that Lekhpal has duly given his statements in the said proceedings and from the martial on record it was evident that the petitioner had encroached upon the gaon sabha land. While on the other hand, the authorities could not find any justification for his occupation on the said land. The petitioner did not file any document or evidence in support of his contentions either in the proceeding u/s 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or in the appellate proceedings U/S 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and even appellate authority did not find any cogent reason for interfering in the order of the Tehsildar and accordingly rejected the appeal and upheld the order of eviction. 5. Before this Court, the petitioner has reiterated his arguments raised before the authorities below. The petitioner could not justify his occupation on the disputed gata No. 1146. With regard to the procedural aspect of the matter, it is noticed that statement of the Revenue Inspector was duly recorded before the competent authority and accordingly no objections in this regard can be sustained. Both the authorities below have duly considered all the objections raised by the petitioner and not having found any substance in the same and rejected them and held that petitioner is illegally occupied the gaon sabha land. 6. Accordingly, this Court also does not find any ground for interference in the impugned orders dated 03.08.2021 and 26.06.2025 this Court finds that the petitioner has been given adequate opportunity of hearing before both the authorities concerned and all the objections raised by the petitioner have been duly considered and answer in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no grounds for interference. The writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 7. However, in case petitioner is found to be a landless agricultural labourer and any benefit can be granted of any scheme of the government for allotment of patta, the same may be considered in accordance with law in case the suitable application is made by the petitioner in this regard. This Court further directs the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for exchange of the land, if any application is moved by him but the above observations will not affect the orders impugned in the present case which has been rejected by the present judgment. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench