HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8286 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha. 2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.01.2024, passed by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Tehsil - Laherpur, District - Sitapur in Case No. 2320 of 2022 (Computer No. T 202210640302320) - Gram Sabha Ganeshpur Vs. Sattar), under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as order dated 11.09.2024, passed by the Additional Collector (Judicial), Sitapur in Appeal No. 335 of 2024 (Computer No. D 202410640000335 - Sattar Vs. Gaon Sabha Ganeshpur), under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner purchased land of Gata No. 985, situated at Village – Ganeshpur, Pargana and Tehsil – Laherpur, District – Sitapur on 30.11.1999 and his name has been recorded in the revenue records. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a house has been constructed by the petitioner over Gata No. 985. It is next submitted that proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against petitioner. 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that due to the fact that a report was given by the area Lekhpal on 27.05.2022, stating that in Khasra No. 982, which is adjacent to Plot No. 985 has been encroached upon by the petitioner and Khasra No. 982 has been recorded as "Khad Gaddha" (manure pit), consequently it is Gram Sabha land. 5. On the basis of aforesaid report of Lekhpal, case was registered and petitioner put under notice. The petitioner filed objections and contested the said case and after hearing the parties concerned, order dated 29.01.2024 was passed holding that the petitioner has encroached upon Khasra No. 982 and declared him as a encroacher. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order, which was also rejected by means of order dated 11.09.2024, and both the orders have been impugned in this writ petition. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravi Dwivedi, Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi, Kuldeep Kaur Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Sattar @ Sattar Shah .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that his construction is confined only to the land purchased by him in Khasra No. 985 and he has not encroached upon Khasra No. 982, which is Gaon Sabha land. 8. The authorities below have conducted inspection in the presence of the petitioner and in which Khasra No. 982 was demarcated and illegal construction was found there upon and consequently petitioner was asked to remove encroachment on the said land. 9. Before this Court also the petitioner has raised same objections which he has raised before the Court below. the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality committed by the authority below with regard to passing of impugned orders recording that petitioner has encroached upon Khasra No. 982. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioner that dispute is with regard to constructions raised upon Khasra No. 982. It is an admitted fact that petitioner occupies Khasra No. 985, which according to him is the land allotted to his grand father and still maintains that he has no constructions over Khasra No. 982. Khasra No. 985 was never demarcated and only Khasra No. 982 was demarcated on which illegal construction of the petitioner were found. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not produce any material so as to occasion this Court to interfere in the findings recorded in the impugned orders. This Court does not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 13. However, the petitioner is given liberty to move appropriate application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation of Khasra No. 985, within a period of three weeks from today, and on submission of such application, the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate shall proceed to demarcate Khasra No. 985, in accordance with law after giving notice to all the parties concerned and conclude the said proceedings within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order. 14. The authorities shall abstain from executing the impugned orders for the period of three weeks from today. In case, in the demarcation proceedings, it is found that the petitioner has encroached upon Khasra No. 982, then the authority concerned shall proceed to implement the impugned orders to the extent the petitioner has encroached upon Khasra No. 982. September 8, 2025 A. Verma WRIC No. 8286 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench