HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11579 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being decided at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 in proceedings under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short, 'the Code, 2006'), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 has been affirmed. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner in possession of Plot No.208-Ka. The adjacent Plot No.208-Kha is the pond land. The respondents-authorities after issuing notice had had initiated proceedings under Section 67(1) of the Code, 2006 on the premise that the petitioner had encroached upon the pond land. The Lekhpal, who had entered into the witness-box, upon his cross-examination, admitted the fact that the demarcation of the Plots No.208-Ka and 208-Kha was not done. It is urged that in absence of the aforesaid demarcation, there was no material on record on which it could be ascertained that the petitioner had actually encroached upon the pond land. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Shameem Khan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 5. This aspect was specifically pointed out to the appellate Court, who also ignored the same and has echoed the same sentiment as expressed by the respondent No.3 and as such the rights of the petitioner have been adversely affected. 6. Learned standing counsel as well as Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, both refuted the aforesaid submissions, however, a specific query was put to both the counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha and the State that in a matter of this nature where the issue as to whether the constructions are situate on Plots No.208-Ka and 208-Kha, without demarcation, how can it be ascertained. 7. The learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and the Standing Counsel both could not dispute that without demarcating it could not be ascertain and admittedly the demarcation was not done. Moreover, in terms of Section 30 of the Code, 2006, it would have been appropriate if the proper demarcation would have been made and only thereafter it could be ascertained with certainty where the offending constructions lies. In light of the aforesaid, there is no purpose of calling for a counter affidavit. 8. Considering the aforesaid and noticing the manner in which the proceedings had been held this Court is of the clear opinion including noting the averments of the Lekhpal, who had entered into the witness-box, who stated that no such demarcation was possible and in view thereof the findings returned by the respondent No.3 as well as the respondent No.2 in appeal, cannot be sustained. Moreover, the two Authorities have also not followed the dictum of this Court in Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 829. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 13.06.2025 and 01.09.2025 are set aside. The proceedings shall stand restored on the board of the respondent No.3, where the parties shall appear on 09.12.2025 and after getting the property properly demarcated and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the said proceedings may be adjudicated in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either party. 10. It is also clarified that in case if the petitioner tries to delay or misuse the liberty, it will be open for the respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders including imposing costs in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Vinod WRIC No. 11579 of 2025 2 Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and another, (2010) 8 SCC 1. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. November 28, 2025 Rakesh/- WRIC No. 11579 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench