HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8454 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri S. C. Kashish, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Mohan Singh for respondent No.3. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 20.7.2024 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, Devi Patan Division, Gonda in proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code as well as order dated 27.6.2025 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Devi Patan Division, Gonda under Section 67 (5) wherein he has rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of eviction and imposition of penalty upon the petitioner by the Tehsildar. 3. It has been submitted that father of the petitioner Sarangdhar son of Parasnath was granted a residential patta after due approval of the Land Management Committee on 1.12.1980 and the rent was also deposited. He submits that father of the petitioner had constructed house and were living peacefully in the said house and no objections were ever raised by any of the parties during his lifetime. It is subsequently that on the basis of a report of the Area Lekhpal dated 26.10.2020 that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner stating that he has encroached upon the land situated at gata No.3 Ga/1.47 acre and the encroachment is on an area of 0.03 acre. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Chandra Kashish Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta, Ram Kumar Srivastava Ram Kumar Sushil Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Addl. District Magistrate, Finance And Revenue, Devi Patan, Gonda And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. In pursuance of the notice and form 19 the petitioner had filed objection and submitted that he was not in unauthorized occupation of the said land but patta was given in favour of his father in 1980. Further, demarcation proceedings were also conducted by the revenue team with the help of the police authorities where in the said report it was stated that the said land is recorded as Ushar and also confirmed the construction over the said land by the petitioner and accordingly only considering the aforesaid facts the Tehsildar concluded that the petitioner is in illegal occupation in the gaon sabha land which is recorded as Ushar and passed orders for eviction and imposed penalty. 5. Against the order of Tehsildar, appeal was preferred where again the grounds raised by the petitioner was rejected relying upon the findings recorded by the Tehsildar and both the aforesaid orders have been assailed in the present writ petition. 6. It has been vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner in his defence before both the authorities below stating that a patta was granted to father of the petitioner in 1980 and house was constructed subsequent to grant of the said patta. Both the authorities have noticed the argument of the petitioner but have not dealt with them. In both the impugned orders there is no finding that patta was not granted to father of the petitioner and accordingly both the authorities below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them, as such, both the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary. 7. Once the petitioner has raised a contention or produced or relied upon certain facts to justify his possession on the said land then it was incumbent upon the Tehsildar as the competent authority under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code to have dealt with the said contentions. In case, he was of the view that the petitioner was unable to substantiate his grounds taken by him it was open for him to have rejected the said contentions or on the other hand if he found favour in the grounds raised by the petitioner then the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code were liable to be dropped but by not taking into account the grounds raised by the petitioner he committed manifest error in proceeding to decide the said matter against the petitioner. In case, the facts narrated by WRIC No. 8454 of 2025 2 the petitioner is before both the authorities then certainly it cannot be a ground of illegal possession of gaon sabha land though this issue is subject to verification and due satisfaction of the competent authority. 8. For the aforesaid reasons both the orders impugned dated 20.7.2024 and 27.6.2025 are illegal and arbitrary and accordingly set aside. 9. The matter is remitted back to the Tehsildar -respondent No.2 where the proceedings under Section 67 is restored. The petitioner should be granted adequate opportunity to demonstrate that patta was granted to him in favour of his father and only after recording his satisfaction with regard to the grounds raised by the petitioner that the Tehsildar should conclude the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code. 10. Let the Tehsildar conclude the proceedings, expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him, in accordance with law. 11. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. August 29, 2025 RKM. WRIC No. 8454 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench