Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44195 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7135 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jiyaur Rahman And 3 Others Respondent :- Collector Unnao And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for respondents no.1 to 4. 2. By means of present writ petition , the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.06.2025, passed by the Collector, Unnao, thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioners under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and held that he had encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land Gata No. 444 situated at Village Barauli, Pargana Mauarawan, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao and thereby he has upheld the order of the Tehsildar, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao dated 14.5.2025. 3. The petitioners in the present petition have assailed both the aforesaid orders. It is submitted that the dispute pertains to the encroachment by the petitioners upon Gata No. 444 situated at Barauli Chauraha, Village Barauli. The petitioners claimed to be the recorded tenure holder of Gata No. 710, which according to the map it separated by a Damar Road. Land situated at Gata No. 444 is recorded as Banjar, which would be a Gaon Sabha land. It is on the basis of the record of Lekhpal that proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, were illegally encroached and made certain shops at Gata No. 444. The petitioners have put in appearance before the Tehsildar and submitted their objections against the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The Tehsildar after considering the objections also considered a report of the Lekhpal, which was in favour of the petitioners, wherein it was stated that the construction of the petitioners is confined to Gata No.710. He has distinguished the said report stating that the report was only with regard to the land situated at Gata No. 710 and does not pertain to Gata No. 444, wherein the allegations made against the petitioners to be an illegal occupation. 4. It has further been recorded that the petitioners have constructed their permanent shops and tin-shed and illegally occupied the said land. He has further noticed that there is no dispute with regard to the construction on Gata No.710, of which the petitioners claim to be their ancestral land but the construction on Gata No. 444 is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners contends that Gata No. 710 extends the Damar Road but the opposite contention is also not supported by the map which has been annexed by the petitioners along with the writ petition, which clearly indicates that both the Gata Nos. 710 and 444 are separated by Road and one gata does not extend beyond the damar road. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Tehsildar concluded that the petitioners are in illegal occupation of Gata No. 444 and also that they are unable to produce any evidence with regard to the contention raised by them and accordingly passed orders for eviction in the appellate proceedings, initiated by the petitioners. The contentions were re-appreciated and there are categorical recording that on the spot inspection being made, it was found that Gata No. 444 and Gata No. 710 are separate and are separated by Gata No. 703, which has been recorded as a Road. 6. Accordingly, it was held that the shops constructed by the petitioners across the road on Gata No. 444 is an illegal occupation of Gaon Sabha land on which the petitioners do not have any right and accordingly the order of Tehsildar for eviction has been upheld. 7. Assailing the aforesaid order, the petitioners have reiterated the arguments raised before the Authorities, in the present petition also, I do not find that the petitioners have any right on Gata No. 444. In the entire appeal I do not find a single averment to the effect that the petitioners have stated that they have not occupying Gata No. 444. 8. From the material on record, I find that the Authorities below have duly considered all the defence raised by the petitioners and also findings returned with regard to occupation of the petitioners on Gata No. 444. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. The petition lacks of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be given liberty to move an application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code for demarcation. 11. I find that there is no restriction for giving such an application before the Authorities concerned. In case, such an application is given, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 30.7.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench