HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11230 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Ramesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Dileep Kumar Gupta on behalf of respondent No.4. 1. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is with regard to occupation of the petitioner on the land of gata No.419 measuring its area 0.790 hectare situated in Gram Sabha- Pahadpur Kaso, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Raebareli which is recorded as Banjar in the revenue records and the allegation is that the petitioner is occupying an area of 0.006 hectare on the said land by constructing a pucca house. The proceedings were initiated by Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Sadar, District Raebareli and orders for eviction and imposition of penalty were passed on 11.10.2023. The petitioner had not put in appearance and the proceedings were continued ex-parte. Subsequently, the petitioner on coming to know of the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 11.10.2023 had preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate, Raebareli. In the said appeal he specifically raised the contentions that the proceedings before the Tehsildar were illegal and arbitrary in as much as no opportunity of hearing was given to him and even notice was not served upon the petitioner. 2. The District Magistrate while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner by means of the impugned order dated 29.7.2025 has duly noticed the arguments of the petitioner but rejected his appeal only on the ground that the petitioner could not demonstrate that he has any right, title or interest on the said land. It is submitted that the District Magistrate failed to consider the specific grounds taken by the petitioner with regard to grant of opportunity of hearing by the Tehsildar. 3. This Court is of the considered view that in appellate or revisional proceedings 4. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Gupta, Pravin Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Ramraj .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) grounds raised and pressed by appellant/revisionist have to be duly considered by the appellate/revisional authority and any order passed ignoring the said grounds would render such an order illegal and arbitrary and liable to be interfered by the Writ Court in exercise of the powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. We further take notice of the fact that in view of the provisions of Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, a person is liable to be dispossessed from the property and any such action should abide by the statutory provisions contained under Section 300 A of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the procedure prescribed has to be meticulously followed and in this regard sub clause 1, 2 and 3 of Section 67 of U. P. Revenue Code itself provides that opportunity of hearing has to be provided to a person against whom order of eviction is proposed. In the present case, we find that the ground was raised by the petitioner with regard to non grant of opportunity of hearing but the same has not been considered by the appellate court. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 11.10.2023 and 29.7.2025 being illegal and arbitrary are set aside. 5. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate concerned to pass a fresh orders in accordance with law with expedition, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. 6. December 3, 2025 RKM. WRIC No. 11230 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench