HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8347 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Sri Ravi Shanker Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for State-respondetns and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. Tthe grievance of the petitioner against the order dated 19.11.2024 and 15.04.2025 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively in proceedings U/S 67(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it was alleged that the petitioner has encroached upon the land situated at Gata No. 1225 measuring 0.046 hectare situated at Village Patna, Pargana & Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki. 3. Notice under Form-19 was submitted to the petitioner and he was asked to respond to the aforesaid allegations by the Tehsildar. Before the Tehsildar, the petitioner had appeared and filed his objections stating that he is a landless person and also stated that he has not occupied any gaon sabha land. It has further been stated by him that he has constructed his house out of the funds provided by the Government and accordingly prayed for withdrawal of the notices. 4. The Tehsildar, considering the objections of the petitioner returned a finding and relied upon the report submitted by the Regional Lekhpal that the land on which the house has been constructed by the petitioner is the gaon sabha land and the petitioner has illegally constructed a house over Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravi Shanker Tewari, Sheo Pal Singh, Vishwakant Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Gaya Prasad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Distt. Barabanki Ayodhya Division And Others .....Respondent(s) the said land and accordingly passed orders for eviction and also imposed penalty upon the petitioner. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2024 preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate. Before the District Magistrate, it was stated that the petitioner is entitled for being granted benefit U/S 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and further stated that his occupation on the said land is more than 12 years which is evident from the fact that the house has been constructed by the petitioner after receiving grants from the Government. 6. The appellate authority also did not return any finding with regard to the prayer of the petitioner for being granted benefit U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code but proceeded to reject the appeal only recording that the said land is recorded as a Khalihan which is a gaon sabha land on which the petitioner is in illegal occupation and accordingly rejected his appeal. 7. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged both the orders namely, order of the appellate authority dated 15.04.2025 and the order of the Tehsildar dated 19.11.2024. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has confined his prayer only to the extent that once it was noticed that the petitioner is in occupation of the disputed land for more than 12 years then the said land ought to have been settled in favour of the petitioner in exercise of powers U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He has further relied upon the judgement of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Baburam Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 2547 where this Court was of the considered view that in case the facts so indicate that a person who is subjected to proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code may be entitled for benefit U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code then both the cases should be consolidated and heard together. 9. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority who had noticed the plea raised by the petitioner with regard to benefit U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code should have remanded the matter back for consideration afresh before the Tehsildar and by not doing so, he has clearly violated the statutory provisions and also not WRIC No. 8347 of 2025 2 noticed the directions of this Court in the case of Baburam (Supra). 10. It is in the aforesaid grounds, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner ought to be considered U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code and accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to move an appropriate application U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code before the concerned Sub- Divisional Magistrate. In case the petitioner prefers an application U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code before the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate within two weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against him in pursuance of impugned orders dated 15.04.2025 and 19.11.2024. 11. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner with expedition, say, within a period of two months from the date of filing of his application. In case the application U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code is allowed then the petitioner would have at liberty to move an application for recall of the order dated 15.04.2025 before District Magistrate and the District Magistrate shall pass necessary orders taking into account the orders passed U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code. In case the claim of the petitioner is rejected then he shall be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition where liberty is granted to him to assail the orders dated 15.04.2025 and 19.11.2024. 12. In light of the aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands partially allowed. September 2, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 8347 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench