HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11400 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 disposed of at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit. Under challenge is the order dated 26.09.2025 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 31.05.2025 has been affirmed. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has his house on Gata no.880 situated in Village Karma Kondari, Tehsil-Sadar, District- Ayodhya of which he is recorded tenure holder along with his brother and other co-sharer. It is further urged that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that plot no.881 which is a chak marg, the petitioner has encroached upon the same from southern and western side. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that proceedings under Section 67(1) of the Code, 2006 were initiated where the petitioner had filed his objections Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Rashmi Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Ram Akbal Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) which was also brought to the notice of the authorities that there was a civil suit pending between the parties however, this aspect of the matter was also not considered. It is also urged that the alleged report made by the Lekhpal dated 11.03.2025 did not indicate the correct position. The said Lekhpal did not prove his report and the same could not have been made the basis of arriving at a conclusion by the respondent no.3. It has further been urged that even in appeal the aforesaid issues were raised but even the appellate authority did not demarcate nor considered the objections of the petitioner which resulted in the order dated 26.09.2025 and it is in view thereof that both the orders are under challenge. It is also urged that the petitioner had categorically urged that there was nothing on record on behalf of the authorities to indicate that the petitioner had made any encroachment. The alleged report upon which reliance has been placed by the authority was also not 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.881, 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 parties it would indicate that the core issue as to whether the constructions have been made on plot no.880 or on the chak marg bearing no.881 is to be adjudicated. This is primarily a question of fact and can be adjudicated after proper measurement and demarcation. It is not disputed that Lekhpal did not enter into witness box to prove report and this aspect has also not been considered by the appellate authority. Apparently, this Court in Rishipal Singh vs State of U.P. and Ors; 2022 SCC OnLine All 829 has laid down detail guidelines as to how and in what manner proceedings under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have to be carried out which is apparent in the instant case has not been followed. WRIC No. 11400 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 26.09.2025 and 31.05.2025 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 (supra). 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. 11400 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench