Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14200 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1611 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohammad Hasan Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Mishra,Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal,Syed Abid Ali Naqvi Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Pandey,C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.3, Land Management Committee. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed by respondent no.2, Assistant Collector (First Class), Tehsildar, Tehsil Thakurduwara, District Moradabad in Case No. 6258/2024 with computerized case No. T202413540506258 (Gram Sabha Vs. Mohammad Hasan) a certified copy whereof of the order dated 18.12.2024 is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the instant writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish the house of the petitioner as well as not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner of his house situated over Ghata No. 783M in the Village Rajpur Kesariyawala, Tehsil Thakurduwara." 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been entertained and allowed in illegal and arbitrary manner without considering the case of the petitioner regarding allotment of the plot in question in favour of petitioner. He submitted that proper remedy available to the authorities is under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 rather under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. He submitted that alternative remedy will not be bar for petitioner to challenge the impugned order before this Court, as such, writ petition should be entertained. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.3, Land Management Committee submitted that order is appellable under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, writ petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that petitioner can raise all the points in appeal rather writ petition before this Court. He further submitted that execution of lease in favour of petitioner is not admitted. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the petitioner under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 7. Under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 remedy of appeal is available to the party against whom order for ejectment and damages has been passed by Tehsildar under Section 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to petitioner to challenge the order impugned dated 18.12.2024 in appeal under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within period of three weeks from today along with the prayer for condonation of delay if any in filing the appeal. The Appellate Court/ Collector shall decide the petitioner's appeal taking liberal view with respect to delay condonation if any in filing of appeal and decide the appeal on merit in proper manner expeditiously. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad