HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10505 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner is directed to implead the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Payagpur, District Bahraich, during course of the day. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (hereinafter referred as 'Code 2006') were initiated against the petitioner for illegal construction/encroachment upon Gaon Sabha land situated at Gata No. 330 situated in Village Kakra Mohammadpur, Pargana Ikauna, Tehsil Payagpur, District Bahraich. Notices were issued to the him. He appeared before the Tehsildar and filed his objections, but subsequently he did not join the proceedings and the Tehsildar by means of the order dated 30.03.2024 returned a finding that the petitioner has in fact encroached upon gaon-sabha land, which is shown as a 'Rasta' and order for eviction and imposition of penalty was passed against him. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for recall of the order dated 30.03.2024, which was allowed and again fresh order were passed after hearing the petitioner on 15.05.2025. This order dated 15.05.2025 was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the District Magistrate, Bahraich, however, with a delay of two months and was supported by an application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority has rejected Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul Kumar Shukla, Mohit Singh, Shivam Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Vidya Ram .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 17.09.2025 stating that the petitioner had full knowledge about the proceedings before the Tehsildar in as much as he has filed his objections to the notice under Section 67 of the Code 2006 and subsequently his application for recall was also allowed vide order dated 19.07.2024 and the orders impugned by him in the appeal were passed after giving an opportunity of hearing. Before this court the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 17.09.2025 as well as the order dated 15.05.2025. 4. A perusal of the application for condonation of delay indicates that only solitary ground has been taken by the petitioner explaining the delay, which is want of knowledge. This aspect of the matter has been correctly dealt with by the appellate authority stating that the petitioner had full knowledge of the proceedings in as much as he had participated in the said proceedings by filing his objections and subsequently his application for recall was also allowed. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the appeal being rejected on the ground of limitation. 5. Considering the grievance raised by the petitioner that he is a recorded tenure holder of Gata No. 329, while the allegations of illegal encroachment are on Gata No. 330; in his objections, he has categorically stated that he has not encroached upon Gata No. 330 and his construction is confined to Gata No. 329, in the aforesaid circumstances, let proceedings for demarcation be undertaken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Payagpur, District Bahraich, who shall conduct the said proceedings and conclude the same within a period of 2 months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, in accordance with law. 6. In case, it is found that the petitioner does not have any construction or encroachment on Gata No. 330, then liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an application for recall of orders dated 17.09.2025 and 15.05.2025 before the District Magistrate, who shall consider the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and pass fresh order in the light thereof. On the other hand, in case petitioner is found to have encroached upon Gata No. 330, the authorities shall proceed to execute the order passed by the Tehsildar as well as the District Magistrate. WRIC No. 10505 of 2025 2 7. It is made clear that till proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 are concluded, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of orders dated 17.09.2025 and 15.05.2025. It is further clarified that once appropriate orders are passed, the protection in pursuance to the order passed by this court shall end and the matter shall be governed by further directions and orders issued by the authorities. 8. The aforesaid order has been passed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall cooperate in the proceedings before the authorities concerned. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of. November 14, 2025 A.Nigam WRIC No. 10505 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench