Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132936-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 717 of 2025 Appellant :- Gyan Prakash Dwivedi and 6 others Respondent :- The State of U.P. and 5 others Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, Vinayak Varma Counsel for Respondent :- Azad Rai,C.S.C., Rajiv Singh (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 20164 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been disposed of. 2. The writ petition was filed seeking to question the validity of notices dated 12.06.2025 issued by Revenue Inspector, Tehsil- Manjhanpur, District- Kaushambi requiring the appellants to remove their encroachment and on failure to remove the encroachment, the same would be removed. 3. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, learned Single Judge apparently ordered for treating the notice as under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ('the Code') and ordered that in case reply was filed by the petitioners to the said notice along with certified copy of the order within fifteen days, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law keeping in mind the notices issued to other similarly situated persons. 4. Counsel for the appellants made submission that learned Single Judge was not justified in disposing of the writ petition. Submissions have been made that notice in question was not issued under Section 67 of the Code and, therefore, there was no question of ordering for responding to the said notice and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. 6. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the notice indicates that on account of filing of P.I.L. No. 1278 of 2025 by Santosh Kumar Mishra, alleging encroachment by the appellants, the Court required the authorities to respond to the allegations made, based on which the notice was issued to the appellants with reference to the fact that earlier proceedings under Section 67 of the Code was initiated against them and on 16.07.2017 the encroachment was removed and that apparently they have again encroached and, therefore, the notice was issued in this regard. 8. The learned Single Judge, as noticed, on finding that earlier the notice was issued under Section 67 of the Code, apparently directed that the notice now issued on 12.06.2025 be treated as notice under Section 67 of the Code and ordered that the appellants may file response to the same and required the authority concerned, having jurisdiction under Section 67 of the Code, to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 9. No fault can be found in the direction issued by the Court. Admittedly, the appellants earlier were in encroachment, which encroachment was removed under provisions of Section 67 of the Code and now again allegations have been made of encroaching over the government land, on which the notice has been issued. 10. The claim made that the appellants are being sought to be evicted from the land owned by them cannot be countenanced. If the appellants are in possession of the land which is owned by them, they can always make out a case before the concerned authority. Challenging the notice and seeking this Court to decide the fact about the nature of possession of the appellants cannot be appreciated. 11. Consequently, no case for any interference in the order dated 25.07.2025 is made out. The appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 P.Sri./Pkb (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad