HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8838 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mohd. Affan, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ghulam Mohammad Kamil, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner through the instant writ petition has challenged the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Tehsildar, Nanpara in Case No. 6703 of 22, instituted under Section 67 of the U.P Revenue Code, 2006, whereby a direction had been issued for removal of encroachment from the land of Gata no. 56, measuring 0.012 hectares at Khata no. 777 of village Ramnagar, Semra, Pargana Charda, Tehsil Nanpara, District Bahraich and further direction had been issued for payment of Rs. 28,800/- as compensation to the Gaon Sabha and Rs. 2,000 towards expenses for removal of encroachment. 3. The petitioner through this writ petition also challenges the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Collector Bahraich by which his appeal filed against the order dated 10.04.2024, had been rejected. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that all along the case of the petitioner was that he has not encroached upon the Gram Sabha land and the encroachment which allegedly existed on the Gram Sabha land belongs to one Shri Ayodhya Prasad. 5. It has further been contended that the petitioner is only aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of Rs. 28,800 and Rs. 2,000 towards expenses for removal of encroachment against him. 6. It has also been contended that for the rest of the orders impugned in this writ petition, relating to the removal of encroachment from the land of Gaon Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ghulam Mohammad Kamil Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Amitabh Shankar Tripathi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Sabha, petitioner is not aggrieved by the said portions of the impugned orders. 7. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that once there is no evidence that the alleged encroachment on the Gram Sabha land belongs to the petitioner, there is no occasion for the authorities to impose penalty and charge the amount for removal of encroachment from the petitioner. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents, though has opposed this writ petition but could not point out any evidence on record, on the basis of which it can be finally concluded that the encroachment in question belongs to the petitioner. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties and I find that the case of the petitioner before the Tehsildar and the Collector was that the encroachment in question was of Ayodhya Prasad and he is not concerned at all with the said encroachment. Since, there is no material on record to show that the encroachment in question is of the petitioner, there is no occasion for the State authorities to impose penalty against him. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is partly allowed with a direction to the State-respondents that they will not realise penalty of Rs. 28,800 and expenses of Rs. 2,000 towards removal of encroachment from the petitioner pursuant to impugned orders dated 23.06.2025 and 10.04.2024. 11. It is made clear that this court has not interfered in the impugned orders dated 23.06.2025 and 10.04.2024, so far as they relate to removal of encroachment from the land of Gata No. 56, measuring 0.012 hectares at Khata no. 777 of village Ramnagar, Semra, Pargana Charda, Tehsil Nanpara, District Bahraich and authorities are free to remove encroachment in question. September 15, 2025 DiVYa WRIC No. 8838 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench