HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8054 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Amitesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, initiated against the petitioner for having illegally and arbitrarily encroached upon the land situated at Gata No. 1437, at Village - Badagaon, Pargana - Hisampur, Tehsil and District - Bahraich which is recorded as "Rasta" in the revenue records. 3. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of a report submitted by the regional Lekhpal who stated that petitioner has encroached upon the public way situated at Gata No. 1437. Notice was duly served upon the petitioner and he has also put in appearance before the Tehsildar (Judicial), Devi Patan Division, Bahraich. The petitioner subsequently, stopped in the proceedings and did not file his objections. 4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Tehsildar proceeded ex- parte and held that petitioner is in illegal occupation over the Gaon Sabha land and passed the orders for his eviction and imposition of penalty by means of order dated 02.01.2023. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the Tehsildar, preferred an appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amitesh Pratap Singh, Nagendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Sahid Ali .....Petitioner(s) The Chief Revenue Officer/ Apar Collector, Bahraich And Others .....Respondent(s) Code, 2006 before the Chief Revenue Officer, Bahraich. In the said appeal petitioner had contended that he had not encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land, infact his house was existing over Gata No. 952 and also that he had purchased the said land on Stamp Paper of Rs.100/- on 20.05.2000. He has further submitted that the amount of penalty imposed upon the petitioner has already been paid. 6. The appellate authority duly considered the grounds taken by the petitioner in the said appeal. The Chief Revenue Officer rejected the grounds taken by the petitioner and further recorded the fact that no material was adduced by the petitioner in support of his contention with regard to occupation of Gata No. 1437 and further found that petitioner has encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land situated at Gata No. 1437 which was recorded as "Rasta" in the revenue records. Apart from above, this Court finds that appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation and even the grounds taken by the petitioner with regard to prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic, was rejected by him, stating that during pendency of the proceedings before the Tehsildar (Judicial), COVID-19 pandemic had already ceased to exist and also took into account the fact that petitioner has appeared and sought time to file objections, but did not participated in the proceedings subsequently. 7. Before this Court also same grounds as raised by petitioner before the Chief Revenue Officer have been argued. Apart from which it has ben stated that as per Rule 26 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, the said house ought to have been settled in favour of petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition. It has been submitted that there is no material on record to indicate that benefit of Rule 26 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952, can be granted to the petitioner and even from perusal of appeal does not indicate that structure which was transferred to the petitioner in the year 2000, was existing on the date fixed. Apart from above, it was stated that construction of petitioner was found to be existing on public way on which no right as claimed by the petitioner can be settled in his favour. 9. Considering the rival contentions it was alleged that house is existing WRIC No. 8054 of 2025 2 over the Gaon Sabha land situated at Gata No. 1437 which is recorded as "Rasta". Report of regional Lekhpal was existing on record on the basis of which proceedings were initiated against petitioner. 10. The submission of petitioner with regard to Rule 26 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 it is noticed that Estate which has been described under Section 3(8) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, is as under :- "3(8) "Estate" means and shall be deemed to have always meant the area included under one entry in any of the registers described in clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) and, in so far as it relates to a permanent tenure-holder, in any register described in clause (e) of Section 32 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, as it stood immediately prior to the coming into force of this Act, or subject to the restriction mentioned with respect to the register described in clause (e), in any of the registers maintained under Section 33 of the said Act or in a similar register described in or prepared or maintained under any other Act, Rule, Regulation or Order relating to the preparation or maintenance of record of rights in force at any time and includes share in, or of an 'estate'." 11. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to demonstrate that the area purchased by him was included in Estate and was mentioned in any of the entries in the Registers mentioned therein. It is only when a person is able to establish his occupation on Estate that his rights can be given as provided under Section 26 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952. 12. Accordingly, this aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P., 2025 (166) RD 262, which has been cited by the petitioner. In the said judgment it has also been considered that the land should have been vested in the petitioner lawfully. This Court finds that only through stamp paper of Rs.100/-, property has been transferred to the petitioner, who on the basis of which, illegally and arbitrarily has encroached upon the said land which is violative of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 13. Accordingly, this Court do not find that benefit of Rule 26 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 is admissible to the petitioner in the present WRIC No. 8054 of 2025 3 case, nor do this Court finds any ground, unless one was taken by him in appeal, or any evidence adduced before any of the authorities. This aspect has been taken for the first time before this Court and again there is no material on record which can justify petitioner's occupation or settlement of his right as per Rule 26 of the Rules, 1952. 14. Accordingly, considering both the judgments, this Court finds that there was no material adduced by the petitioner which can justify his occupation on Gata No. 1437 over the said land which is recorded as public way and therefore apart from which this Court finds that amount of penalty has already been deposited by the petitioner. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court do not find any ground for interference in the impugned orders. 16. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. September 3, 2025 A. Verma WRIC No. 8054 of 2025 4 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench