HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8232 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri Vikram Dutt Pandey holding brief of Shri Pankaj Gupta for respondent No.4. 2. By means of the present petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 8.4.2021 passed by Tehsildar, Sadar (Judicial), District Gonda wherein in exercise of powers under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, he has passed orders for eviction and demolition of illegal construction raised by the petitioner on the Gaon Sabha land as well as order dated 7.3.2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Gonda, in exercise of the powers under Section 67 (5) has dismissed the appeal upholding the order of Tehsildar dated 8.4.2021. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of report of Lekhpal dated 13.7.1999 and 12.7.1999 alleging that the petitioner is in illegal possession of gram sabha land situated at gata No.327 M area 0.0012 hectare at Village Sarai Jargar, Tehsil Sadar, Pargana and District Gonda. The area Lekhpal appeared in the proceedings and his statement was recorded to the effect that the petitioner has encroached upon gata No.327 M and constructed his house for residential purposes. In the said proceedings, it was the contention of the petitioner that he had constructed his house on the patta granted to him but from the evidence on record it was clear that the patta was granted only for an are of 0.010 hectare while on the other hand, the petitioner has encroached upon excess are of 0.056 hectare. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Pratap Singh, Anuj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Naushad Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The petitioner has filed his objection in the said proceedings which concluded by passing of order dated 8.4.2021 by Tehsildar (Judicial), Gonda holding that the petitioner his in illegal occupation of gata No.327 which is recorded as Purani Parti which is gaon sabha land and is reserved for school. 5. The petitioner filed appeal under Section 67 (4) of the Code of 2006 before Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Gonda who has duly considered the entire facts of the matter as well as the grounds taken by the petitioner. He has also considered the fact and the ground taken by the petitioner that he was granted patta on a portion of the said land of an area of 0.010 hectare but rejected the contention of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner has much larger area in his illegal possession than the area allotted to him and accordingly rejected his contentions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised before the authority concerned and submitted that the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and deserved to be set aside. He has further submitted that apart from the said house he has no other residential accommodation and, therefore, on equitable consideration of the facts the orders deserved to be set aside. 7. Counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the order of this Court passed in Writ - C No.7303 of 2025 (Dilshad Ahmad versus State of U.P. and 3 others, where the brother of the petitioner in similar circumstances was proceeded against an order for eviction and claims parity, but this Court had protected him to the extent of 0.010 hectare of the land and found that he was not entitled to the entire land of 0.056 hectare and claim parity with the same case. 8. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that before the authorities below it was clearly established that the land on which the petitioner has constructed his house is a gaon sabha land and even if patta was granted to the petitioner it was only on an area of 0.010 hectare. He further submits that the procedure prescribed under law has been duly followed where Revenue Inspector has deposed in the proceedings clearly indicating that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of gaon sabha land. Even the statement of Gram Pradhan was recorded in the said proceedings where he also stated that the petitioner was granted patta only for 0.010 hectare though he is in excess of much larger area. 9. After perusing the map and the record, this Court is of the considered view that first it is not disputed that the petitioner has encroached upon gaon WRIC No. 8232 of 2025 2 sabha land for an area of 0.056 hectare. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that patta was granted to him on an are of 0.010 hectare, he could not defend the occupation of the entire area of alleged illegal encroachment i.e. 0.056 hectare. Accordingly, no any infirmity in the impugned orders can be found. Apart from the above, it is noticed that the Tehsildar while rejecting the contention of the petitioner, had clearly stated that the copy of the patta has not been produced before him and consequently, there was no material to support of the case of the petitioner with regard to the patta. Even in the appellate proceedings, no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner where also he could not substantiate his claim of the said land . 10. Apart from the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit has been granted in the case of Dilshad Ahmad (supra) inasmuch as all the brothers were put under notice under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code and were proceed against the impugned orders have been passed in both the cases on the same date. Once this Court has already granted benefit to one brother for 0.010 hectare, then similar benefit cannot be granted to the other brothers inasmuch as the patta which has said to be granted in favour of the father of the petitioner and not to the in favour of the petitioner, his brother individually. 11. It is for the aforesaid reason, once a benefit has been given to one of the brothers that the same benefit cannot be extended to others as such a benefit could extend beyond the permissible limits of area granted in the patta itself. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant the similar benefit. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands dismissed. August 27, 2025 KR WRIC No. 8232 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench