HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8197 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri D. K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has admitted his encroachment on gaon sabha land of gata No.183 ka area 0.057 hectare situated in Village Laiburwa, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda in as much as no revenue entry is existing for the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed application under Section 67 A on the basis of possession which has been rejected by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gonda by means of order dated 4.7.2025. While passing the said order he has relied upon the report of Tehsildar, Gonda dated 24.1.2024 where it has been stated the land situated at gata No.183 ka area 0.081 hectare is recorded as banjar and resolution of the gaon sabha dated 10.9.2023 also exists for construction of a Panchayat Bhawan and in said land and even in the revenue records entry has been made in favour of Panchayat Bhawan. He has submitted that on remaining partition of the said land Anganwadi Bhawan is also proposed to be constructed and the remaining portion has been left for public way. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, the application of the petitioner under Section 67 Ka has been rejected. 3. In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to restrain the opposite parties from interfering in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner on 0.057 hectare land of gata No.183 Ka. He Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dilip Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Chandra Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) further submits that the petitioner has filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda bearing Regular Suit No.973/2024 ( Chandra Kuamr Vs. Bhoomi prabandhak Samiti as well as State of U.P. and others). He submits that in the said suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has also been filed but no orders have been passed till date. 4. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, on the basis of the instructions, submits that the petitioner has not approached the revenue authorities to demarcate the said land or even the construction over remaining portion of the land. 5. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that the prayer made before this Court in the present writ petition is also the same praying for similar prayer which the petitioner has prayed for in the suit proceedings instituted by him before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda. It is noticed that once appropriate suit proceedings have been instituted by the petitioner then on the same grounds petition under Article 227 would not be maintainable. 6. In light of the above, we find that the application under Section 67 A of U.P. Revenue Code has already been dismissed and accordingly this Court does not find any ground for interference in the petition. The petitioner is at liberty to press his application for interim relief in the suit itself. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. September 3, 2025 RKM. WRIC No. 8197 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench