Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1536 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11377 of 2024 Petitioner :- Chhote Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Pankaj Gupta learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. In light of the limited controversy available before this Court, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of. Under challenge is the order dated 20.02.2024 whereby the eviction order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed also imposing a penalty of Rs.6,600/- and a cost of Rs.10/- against the petitioner. The said order was assailed by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which has also been disposed of by means of the order dated 28.06.2024. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the recorded tenure holder of plot no.327 over which the petitioner has got his house which is there since decades. It is further urged that a contiguous plot no.317 which is recorded as Rasta over which the petitioner has not made any obstruction nor his house is situated on the same but the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under Section 67 of the Code, 2006. It is urged that no notice was served on the petitioner, as a consequence, the petitioner could not plea or place his defence before the authority. It is also urged that while filing an appeal, the aforesaid ground regarding non service of notice as well as the fact that the petitioner is on his own plot no.327 while the Lekhpal did not make any spot inspection in presence of the petitioner and the report has been filed and without examining this aspect of the matter, the first appellate court has also dismissed the appeal. Accordingly, the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law as well as the statutory and procedural requirements as held by this Court in Rishipal Singh vs State of U.P. and Ors; 2022 SCC Online All 829 to be mandatory has also not been followed, consequently, the impugned orders be set aside. Learned Standing counsel for the State respondent as well as Gaon Sabha could not dispute the fact that the report of the Lekhpal was not proved in accordance with law in as much as the Lekhpal had not entered into witness box to substantiate the case. It is also not disputed that the petitioner did not appear or contest the proceedings before the Court of first instance, however, it is submitted by the learned Standing counsel that the notice as per record is said to have been served on the daughter of the petitioner. Despite the aforesaid,, it could not be established as to whether the Lekhpal who had filed his report ever gave notice to the petitioner for making a spot inspection as well as the fact that the Lekhpal did not enter into the witness box. In this view of the matter, where the primary procedural requirements as laid down by this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh (supra) have not been followed, accordingly, this Court considering the matter at this stage of admission itself dispose of the writ petition setting aside the orders impugned dated 28.06.2024 as well as 20.02.2024 only on the ground of non compliance of the statutory requirements as laid down by this Court in Rishipal Singh (supra). The parties shall appear in the Court of Tehsildar where the matter shall stand restored on 27.01.2025. The Tehsildar concerned shall get a fresh inspection done with notice to the parties and, in case, if the petitioner does not cooperate, it shall be open for the Court of first instance to proceed and decide the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period six weeks from the date the parties appear before the Court of Tehsildar concerned n 27.01.2025. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. It is made clear that the impugned orders dated 28.06.2024 as well as 20.02.2024 have been set aside only on the ground of non compliance of statutory requirements and this Court has not considered the plea of the petitioner on merits. Order Date :- 9.1.2025/Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench