HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35958 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anand Bhaskar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Himanshu Shukla, holding brief of Sri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Gram Sabha. The present petition seeks to assail an order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No. 8874 of 2023, under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and the subsequent order dated 30.08.2025, whereby the appeal filed thereagainst has also been dismissed. The principal ground which counsel for the petitioner has sought to urge is that the petitioner is in occupation of a portion of the land in question and that he would be entitled for settlement in terms of provisions under Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Counsel for the State-respondents has submitted that the aforesaid ground having not been taken before concerned respondent-authorities in the proceedings under Section 67, it would not be open to the petitioner to press the said ground at this stage. Section 67A has a beneficial object and in terms thereof, upon fulfillment of the conditions contained in the section, the site of the house is to be settled with the existing owner. Any technical or procedural objection should not be used to deny the benefit under the section if the conditions therein are met. The right conferred being statutory in nature, this Court is of the view that in the event the petitioner fulfills the required conditions he would be entitled to raise a claim in regard to the same. In this view of the matter, even if the challenge to the orders impugned may not be sustained on the basis of a ground not taken before the concerned respondent- authorities, the petitioners would be within their rights to raise a claim based on the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Hari Narayan Singh Pramod Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) relevant statutory provision by moving an application for the purpose. Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, seeks an indulgence to move an application before the concerned authority to press his claim under Section 67A. He seeks a short time for filing the aforesaid application. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to raise his claim for granting benefit of Section 67A by moving an appropriate application before the concerned authority. In order, for the petitioner, to raise the aforesaid claim, it is provided that for a period of two weeks from date, the order dated 29.04.2025 passed in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 would not be given effect. It is made clear that the observations made herein above, are confined to the general intent and beneficial purpose of the provision contained under Section 67-A, and are not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claim, which is to be examined independently by the concerned authority in accordance with law upon a due application being made in that regard. (Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.) October 15, 2025 Imroz WRIC No. 35958 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD IMROZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad