HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10780 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Jayshankar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Vikram Dutt Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for illegally encroaching the land situated at Gata No. 173 area 0.085 hect Gram Delhupur, Pargana Patti, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh which is recorded as Navin Parti. In the said proceedings, report of the revenue authorities were called for and as per the said report it was stated that the petitioner has encroached upon the gaon sabha land and made permanent constructions. Accordingly, it was found that the petitioner has illegally encroached upon the gaon sabha land and orders for eviction and imposition of penalty were passed. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Tehsildar dated 08.04.2025 had filed an appeal U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. The District Magistrate, Pratapgarh was of the view that despite service of notice upon the petitioner, he did not appear before the Tehsildar nor did he file any objections. Apart from which no material was demonstrated indicating that the petitioner had any legal right to occupy the gaon sabha land and accordingly rejecting the appeal affirming the order passed by the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jayshanker Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Nizamuddin And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Tehsildar. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that he had also given an application U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 stating that his occupation on the said land is required to be regularized and also that he is being in possession of the said land prior to 29.11.2012. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner submits that his application U/S 67 A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ought to be considered and decided before passing any orders U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 5. Accordingly, he confines his prayer for a suitable direction firstly to the competent authority to decide the application U/S 67 A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and till decision of his application U/S 67 A U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the orders passed under section U/S 67 and U/s 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 6. Learned Standing Counsel opposes the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 7. After hearing learned counsel for parties and from perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that firstly before the revenue authorities who had proceeded against the petitioner U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the petitioner was not able to demonstrate his legal right of occupation on the disputed land and accordingly orders for eviction and imposition of penalty was passed. However, in the meanwhile, the petitioner also had filed an application u/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 seeking regularization of his legal occupation. It is the settled proposition of law that whenever authorities are considering evicting a person from the gaon sabha land they also have to consider whether his occupation can be legalized invoking provisions of Section 67A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 8. In the present case, the petitioner himself has moved an application and the same ought to be considered and decided by respondent No. 3. 9. Learned Standing Counsel also does not oppose the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner. WRIC No. 10780 of 2025 2 10. In light of the above, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 3 to consider the application of the petitioner U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously, say, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. In case he finds merit in the said application, the petitioner would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recall of the orders passed U/S 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. While in case he finds petitioner is not entitled to the benefit U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the said order as well as orders passed in exercise of powers U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 11. Till decision on his application U/S 67 A U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is taken, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. It is made clear that the protection granted by this Court will expire on the date appropriate orders are passed U/S 67A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. November 11, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 10780 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench