HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10468 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Nirmal Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for 1, 2 and 3. 2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, initiated against him with regard to illegal encroachment over the land situated at Gata Nos. 127 and 130, area 0.354 hectares, located in Village - Bakhtyar Nagar, Tehsil - Malihabad, District - Lucknow. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said land is in the category 5-3 and is recorded as "Banjar" land in the revenue records and on which the petitioner is in illegal occupation and is undertaking agricultural activities and also planted mango trees. 4. The Tehsildar, Tehsil - Malihabad, Lucknow by means of order dated 29.10.2021, recorded that petitioner has been served and has filed his objections, and Tehsildar, relying upon the report of the revenue officials has indicated that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of the aforesaid land which is Gaon Sabha land and consequently found no ground for sustaining the objections of the petitioner, passed orders for eviction and imposition of penalty of Rs.1,06,200/- and imposed Rs.1000/- upon the petitioner for execution. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 29.10.2021, filed an Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nirmal Singh Yadav, Divya Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Arshad Ullah Khan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) appeal before the District Magistrate, Lucknow under Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The District Magistrate has taken note of the fact that petitioner had initiated suit proceedings with regard to the said land, but no orders have been passed against him in the said proceedings. He has further recorded the fact that petitioner had duly participated in the proceedings before the Tehsildar and he could not demonstrate any ground that he has right, interest or title over the disputed land. Apart from which there are other material on record which indicate that the land on which the petitioner is in illegal occupation is Gaon Sabha land and in the aforesaid circumstances, he did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tehsildar and therefore rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only ground on which he had contested before this Court was with regard to possession over the said land. he has submitted that substantial right of the petitioner on the disputed land are subject matter of litigation in the suit proceedings, and only confines his prayer to the extent of penalty imposed by the Tehsildar and which was sustained by the appellate authority. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. 8. After hearing rival contentions it is noticed that the disputed land being Gata Nos. 127 and 130, area 0.354 hectares, located in Village - Bakhtyar Nagar, Tehsil - Malihabad, District - Lucknow is in occupation of the petitioner on which he is carrying out agricultural activities and also has planted mango trees. Clearly, the petitioner has not raised any constructions over the said land and he is merely conducting agricultural activities. This Court, therefore, takes note of the fact that suit proceedings have been initiated by filing suit for declaration before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malihabad, Lucknow since 2019 and no orders have been passed till date in favour of the petitioner therein. 9. This Court also do not find any material to indicate that the petitioner has any right, title or interest over the said land. Accordingly, this Court do not find any infirmity with regard to the orders of eviction. WRIC No. 10468 of 2025 2 10. With regard to order for imposition of penalty, this Court finds that there is no description as to how penalty of Rs.1,06,200/- has been imposed upon the petitioner, considering the fact that no constructions have been raised by the petitioner over the disputed land and merely agricultural activities are being conducted by the petitioner. The intention to permanently encroach the public utility land is lacking and is at best a case of temporary encroachment. 11. In the light of above this Court finds that quantum of penalty of Rs.1,06,200/- is excessive and same is reduced to Rs.10,000/-, which the petitioner shall pay to the respondent authorities as per impugned orders, within next four weeks, failing which, same shall be recovered from the petitioner in accordance with law. 12. This Court further takes note of the fact that the suit proceedings are pending and in case suit proceedings conclude in favour of petitioner, he shall be at liberty to move an application for recall before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Lucknow in Case No. 674 of 2022, who shall pass appropriate orders taking into account the judgment passed under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 13. In the light of above, present writ petition is partly allowed. 14. it is made clear that the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations and findings recorded by this Court in the present order. Considering the fact that suit proceedings are pending since 2019, it is expected that same shall be concluded with expedition, in accordance with law. November 12, 2025 A. Verma WRIC No. 10468 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench