Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47113 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7555 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bechan @ Islam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Pankaj Gupta for respondent No.s 4 and 5. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code were initiated agaisnt the petitioner for allegedly illegally occupying the gaon sabha land situated at gata No.611 area 0.008 hectare in Village Kashijot, Block Payagpur, District Bahraich, which has been recorded as public way (Rasta). It seems that the petitioner did not appear before the Assistant Collector (First Class) /Tehsildar Payagpur, District Bahraich and proceedings were conducted ex - parte where it was found that he had encroached upon Gaon Sabha land and accordingly orders for his eviction and imposition of penalty were passed vide order dated 8.11.2024. 3. The petitioner had preferred an appeal which was filed with certain delay assailing the order dated 8.11.2024. In his appeal the petitioner had also moved an application for condonation of delay explaining the delay which was caused in filing the said appeal and also clearly stated that he has not encroached upon gata No.611 and the allegations are false. 4. The appellate authority was of the view that the petitioner has not been able to explain the delay in filing the appeal and consequently rejected the application for condonation of delay. Apart from the above, the appellate authority further went into the merits of the case and found that gata No.611 area 0.008 hectare has been recorded as public way (Rasta) and consequently came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not have any right or interest in the said land and consequently is occupying the said land illegally and passed the eviction order imposing penalty vide order dated 8.11.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had duly explained the delay and submitted that he did not receive form 20 of U.P. Revenue code in the notice under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code and in absence of knowledge he could not move any representation before the competent authority and accordingly it is only subsequently that when the order for eviction were passed that he came to know of the proceedings under Section 67 and thereafter filed appeal under Section 67 (5). He further submits that in case the appellate authority was not satisfied with the reasoning given for condonation of delay then his appeal should have been dismissed at the very outset rather than entering into the merits of the controversy raised by the petitioner in his appeal and accordingly recorded a finding on merits of the case agaisnt the petitioner. 6. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that the petitioner had filed an appeal belatedly with delay of approximately two months and the said delay was explained by the petitioner by stating that he did not have knowledge of the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code. There was no objection filed by the State contesting the application for condonation of delay and in view of the aforesaid circumstances the appellate authority rejected the application for condonation of delay. 7. Considering the reasons given in rejecting the same this Court finds that the reasons are perverse, illegal and arbitrary in as much as the delay was only for two months which is not a substantial length of time. Apart from which considering that serious rights pertaining to eviction and imposition of penalty were at stake it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to have considered the application for condonation of delay with liberality but instead of allowing the same has illegally rejected the application for condonation of delay. Apart form above, he has also returned a finding on the merits of case agaisnt the petitioner 8. This Court is of the considered view that while passing the order rejecting the application for condonation of delay there was no occasion for him to have returned a finding considering the merits of the appeal. It is for the aforesaid reasons that we find that the impugned order date 22.7.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order date 22.7.2025 is set aside. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the appeal was of two months and the same has been adequately explained by the petitioner and accordingly the application was duly liable to be allowed and consequently the same stands allowed. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for deciding the same afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 11. The petitioner will be at liberty to file any fresh documents which he wants to file within a maximum period of two weeks from today. The appellate authority thereafter shall proceed to consider and decide the appeal with expedition, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him, in case there is no legal impediment, in accordance with law. 12. Till passing of the final orders in appeal, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 8.11.2024. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 12.8.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench