HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11389 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being deprived of at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit. Under challenge is the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was dismissed, as a consequence, the order passed by the respondent no.3 under Section 67(1) of the Code, 2006 dated 09.05.2025 has been affirmed. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the procedure prescribed for determining as to whether any unlawful encroachment was made on public utility land has not been followed by the authorities. It has further been urged that the petitioner did not get an adequate opportunity to contest the proceedings, coupled with the fact that before the respondent no.3, the proceedings had proceeded exparte and despite the petitioner having moved an application for recall, which was rejected, without considering and without indicating any sufficient cause. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shyam Bahadur Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Kumar Gupta .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) It is also urged that the petitioner had categorically pleaded that he has his constructions over his plot no.3620 and to substantiate the same, he had also brought on record a report of inspection made in proceedings under Section 24 of the Code, 2006 relating to the plot no.3620. There was nothing on record on behalf of the authorities to indicate that the petitioner had made any encroachment in so far as plot no.3621 is concerned. The alleged report upon which reliance has been placed by the authority has also not been proved as the author of the report did not enter into the witness box. In such circumstances, the findings have been returned on unproved documents and as such the findings cannot be sustained. Sri Mohan Singh as well as learned Standing counsel have opposed the aforesaid submissions, however, a specific query was put to them as to whether the Lekhpal had entered into witness box to prove the report to indicate that any encroachment existed on plot no.3621, to which they had answered in negative. In view thereof, no purpose would be served in calling for a counter affidavit. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and from a perusal of the material on record, it appears that upon institution of proceedings under Section 61(1) of the Code, 2006 before the Tehsildar, the petitioner contested the proceedings but, thereafter, failed to participate and the matter had proceeded exparte. The petitioner had moved an application for recall which also came to be dismissed for want of prosecution whereafter, it was followed by another application for recall. At this point, without allowing the said application, the authority considered the case of the petitioner on merits and while rejecting the application for recall affirmed the main order passed against the petitioner exparte under Section 67(1) of the Code, 2006. Even the appellate court had merely affirmed the findings of the respondent no.3 but failed to take any independent look at the material on record. The report has been referred to by appellate authority which is said to have been conducted in presence of the petitioner, however, the same is disputed. It also urged that even if at all the said report had been called for, the fact remains that initial defect of not proving the case by the authorities could not come to the aid of the appellate court to have non suited the petitioner. WRIC No. 11389 of 2025 2 In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the orders impugned are bad in the eyes of law and accordingly, cannot be sustained. The orders dated 09.05.2025 and 26.08.2025 are set aside and the proceedings shall stand restored on the Board of the respondent no.3. The parties shall appear before the respondent no.3 on 08.12.2025 who shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting unnecessary adjournments re-decide the matter as expeditiously as possible say within a period of three months commencing from 08.12.2025 by following the dictum of this Court in Rishipal Singh vs State of U.P. and Ors; 2022 SCC OnLine All 829. In case, if the petitioner tries to linger on or does not cooperate in the proceedings, it will be open for the authority to pass appropriate orders. Any adjournment sought by the petitioner should be occasioned with appropriate costs keeping the dictum of the Apex Court in Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj; (2010) 8 SCC 1 in mind. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. November 28, 2025 Harshita. WRIC No. 11389 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench