HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10320 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Suyesh Pradhan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the proceedings initiated against him U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby he has been held to have illegally encroached upon the gaon sabha land bearing Gata No. 1030/0.174 hect. Village - Saraon, Tehsil and Partna Laharpur, District Sitapur. 3. According to the impugned order passed by Tehsildar dated 31.01.2025 despite service, the petitioner did not put in appearance and relying upon the report of the revenue authorities the petitioner was declared to have encroached upon gaon sabha land and order for eviction and imposition of penalty was passed. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders has preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate who did not find infirmity in the order passed U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code and the appeal was also dismissed on 30.06.2025. 5. It is noticed that in the appeal the petitioner had not indicated as to how his possession over the said land is justified or legal and consequently the appellate authority also did not find any infirmity in the order of the Tehsildar. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Abrar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 6. In the present writ petition, while assailing both the aforesaid orders, a new document has been annexed by the petitioner in the form of Khatauni pertaining to 1386 to 1391 fasli pertaining to year 1978 where it seems that the name of Sahdulla was the recorded tenure holder in the said land. It has been stated that subsequently his name was deleted and the land was entered as Naveen Parti. 7. He has further submitted that it is in this regard that the petitioner has filed a suit along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC before Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sitapur where he has sought a decree for declaration on the basis of possession. 8. Accordingly, it is in the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner only prays that till orders are passed on the aforesaid application, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondents in pursuance of Orders U/S 67 and 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code. 9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and accordingly oppose the writ petition. 10. Considering the rival contention and also considering the fact that the petitioner has confined his relief only for a direction for protection till such time the proceeding under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is decided. This Court is of the considered view that once a suit for declaration has been filed in the court of competent jurisdiction, till such time orders are passed on the aforesaid applications, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the orders impugned in the present case. 11. Accordingly, let the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC be decided within four weeks from today in accordance with law. It is made clear that the protection granted by this Court is only for a period of four weeks from today. 12. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings and appear on all dates before the trial court, failing which the benefit of the aforesaid order shall not be available. WRIC No. 10320 of 2025 2 13. In view of the aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. November 10, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 10320 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench