HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10569 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Mohammdi, district Lakhimpur Kheri in proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code wherein he has held that petitioner has illegally encroached upon the gaon sabha land situated at Gata No. 750 area 0.146 hectares of Village Sisora Sahmat, Pargana Pasgawan, Tehsil Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri as well as order dated 06.10.2025 passed by Collector, Lakhimpur Kheri in appeal against the order passed by Tehsildar wherein he has upheld the order of the Tehsildar and rejected the appeal. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the notice U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue code was issued by the Tehsildar (Judicial) in pursuance to which the petitioner has put in appearance and filed his objections. In the objections filed by the petitioner, it was merely stated that he has not encroached upon the gaon sabha land Gata No. 750 area 0.146 hectares of Village Sisora Sahmat, Pargana Pasgawan, Tehsil Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri which is recorded as Talab. He had further submitted that some land adjacent to the disputed land was purchased by means of a registered sale deed by one Surendra Kumar, the brother of the petitioner during the proceedings before Tehsildar (Judicial), the Lekhpal had also Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Basant Lal Yadav, Dileep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Raju @ Raj Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Collector, Lakhimpur Kheri And Others .....Respondent(s) appeared and statement was recorded and was duly cross examined by the petitioner. The Lekhpal in his report has stated that the petitioner encroached upon gaon sabha land situated at Gata No. 750 area 0.146 hectares of Village Sisora Sahmat, Pargana Pasgawan, Tehsil Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri and an area of 98 sq. meter have been encroached on which a pakka makan has been built. 4. He was cross examined by the petitioner but he maintained his statement and the report submitted by him. It is after considering the entire facts of the case, the Tehsildar has recorded that even the petitioner during the said proceedings did not inform as to on which gata number his house has been built and accordingly he concluded that there were sufficient material on record to indicate that the petitioner has encroached upon the gaon sabha land and accordingly direction of eviction and imposition of penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner by means of order dated 22.08.2025. 5. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate. Even in the appeal gata number on which the construction of the petitioner exists has not been given and accordingly he did not fined any ground to interfere in the matter and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwair Vs. Kamala Devi, 2001 (6) SCC 496 and confined that petitioner has encroached upon the land situated at Gata No. 750 area 0.146 hectares of Village Sisora Sahmat, Pargana Pasgawan, Tehsil Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri, sustained the order of the Tehsildar rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 6. Before this Court, the petitioner has submitted that the land has not been measured and challenged the validity of both the orders. Before this Court also the petitioner could not demonstrate his right over the land on which pakka construction has been made. In support of his submissions, he has annexed a copy of sale deed entered into between Aarsi and Surendra Kumar, brother of the petitioner. In the said sale deed, this Court does not find any mention of gata number and further also this Court does not find as to whether what rights the seller had in the said land. Accordingly, this Court also does not find any cogent material with regard to title of the petitioner with regard to the land of the ownership he claims. 7. With regard to demarcation, this Court finds that the Lekhpal has clearly WRIC No. 10569 of 2025 2 stated that the petitioner has encroached upon the area which is recorded as a Talab and 98 sq. meters has been encroached. Merely because there is no mention of demarcation cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that there is an infirmity in the proceedings. It is not a case of the petitioner that his construction is confined to any area over which he has any right or title. It is only when the petitioner could have successfully demonstrated his right or title to the contiguous land on which he is the owner then only issue of demarcation could have arisen. 8. In any view of the matter while implementing the orders, the respondents would only execute the order with regard to the area which is recorded as a Talab and not on any other area which may be in possession of the petitioner or any other villager. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. 9. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. November 4, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 10569 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench