Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1032-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11171 of 2024 Petitioner :- Satyadev Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Sultanpur And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is that proceedings under Section 67 were concluded in his favour vide order dated 12.03.2024, but immediately thereafter on the same date i.e. 12.03.2024, another notice under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been issued to him. The contention of the petitioner's Counsel is that during the earlier proceedings, demarcation exercise was undertaken thrice, and it was found that the house of the petitioner on the abadi land does not encroach upon the pond land. In these circumstances, he says initiation of fresh proceedings amounts to harassment and unfair treatment. However, learned Standing Counsel says that the earlier proceedings were initiated on the allegation that the toilet constructed by him had encroached upon some public land, whereas now, the notice is because of the fact that gate and wall constructed by the petitioner is an encroachment on public land. We are prima facie of the opinion that if it was so, then it would have been visible in the earlier proceedings also and should have been taken note of. Proceedings cannot be initiated piecemeal in respect of the same Gata citing different encroachments, unless of course, the encroachments have been done on different points of time. Although, the authority competent under Section 67 is the Tehsildar, in the facts of this case, we direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to first of all get the facts verified as to whether the second notice dated 12.03.2024 under Section 67 is justified and permissible or not. If after due application of mind, he finds that it is justified and permissible, then the Tehsildar shall proceed further. However, if the Sub-Divisional Magistrate finds that there is no justification for the second notice and it is not permissible, then he shall communicate it to the Tehsildar who shall drop the proceedings. However, if the second proceedings under Section 67 have been initiated on any application of a private person, then the said person(s) would also be heard by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and thereafter by the Tehsildar. It is made clear that if the basis of the subsequent proceedings is an encroachment which was made subsequent to the earlier encroachment, then the proceedings under Section 67 would be maintainable. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench