HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 310 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Atul Chander Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Gram Pradhan. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the writ court in Writ - C No. 7252 of 2025; Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 3. The Gram Pradhan i.e. the private respondent herein challenged an order dated 15.07.2025 seizing his administrative and financial powers. The allegation against him was of having illegally occupied a building constructed on Gaon Sabha land. His defence was that the building was not constructed by him rather it was constructed by his father-in-law long back when he was not the Gram Pradhan and subsequently, on his death it devolved upon his wife and that is how he was in possession. Most important, proceedings were drawn against him under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and an order for removal of encroachment on Gaon Sabha land was passed which has been put to challenge in Writ - C No. 1966 of 2025, wherein, the operation of the orders passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and in Appeal/ Revision arising therefrom have been stayed. The stay order is still operative. In spite of it, the order of seizure of financial and administrative powers also passed. The writ petition has been allowed by the impugned judgment. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Atul Chander Dwivedi, Ruby Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ved Prakash Yadav, C.S.C., Mohan Singh Krishna Kumar Tiwari .....Appellant(s) Ram Pratap And 10 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The appellant's counsel was confronted to point his locus in the facts of this case to maintain this special appeal, especially as, he was not a party in this writ petition and even otherwise in view of the facts noticed hereinabove and also as to what is the error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, none could be pointed out. In fact, having gone through the order of seizure and facts as noticed hereinabove which are undisputed, we do not find it to be a fit case for interference certainly not at the behest of the appellant in the facts of this case. 5. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 6. Consequently, the special appeal is also dismissed. 7. Our order shall however not be understood as conferring any right on the private respondents to occupy the building built on the Gaon Sabha land or the Gaon Sabha land in question and it will not have any bearing on the writ petition which is pending nor any other proceedings which may be initiated against him or his wife in this regard. September 12, 2025 R.K.P. SPLA No. 310 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench