HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31724 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner on the ground that he has encroached upon the public pathway which is Khasra No. 52 measuring 0.2780 hectare and constructed a house over the said khasra number. Petitioner had filed his objections, which are as under; "1. यह िक वाद उपरोक्त मे िदया गया नोिटस आर०सी० प्रपत्र 20 िखलाफ कानून व िखलाफ वाक्यात है एवं तथ्यो के िवपरीत व झूठ पर आधािरत है िजसमे कतन कोई सच्चाई नही है। जो हर दशा में खािरज िकया जाना जरूरी है। 2. यह िक प्राथीर् ने रास्ते की आराजी खसरा नं0 52 0.278 हे० पर कोई कब्जा नहीं िकया है प्राथीर् को पाटीर् बन्दी की िबनाह पर उक्त गलत नोिटस जारी िकया गया है। जो हर दशा में खािरज िकया जायें। 3. यह िक िकसी अिधकारी द्वारास्थल की पुनः जाँच करायी जाये तथा उक्त नोिटस खािरज िकया जायें।" 3. The order of eviction was passed on 5.12.2024 against which an appeal under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhupendra Kuamr Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C. Pramod Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) was filed on the following grounds; "1. यह िक आदेश अवर न्यायालय िदनांक 05.12.2024 िनयम िवरूद्ध पािरत िकया है जो हर दशा में िनरस्त होने योग्य है। 2. यह िक अवर न्यायालय ने पत्रावली पर दािखल आपित्त व शपथ पत्र िदनांक 23.6.2022 का िबना संज्ञान िलए त्रुिट पूणर् आदेश िदनांक 05.12.2024 पािरत कर गलती की है यिद अवर न्यायालय द्वारा स्थलीय जाँच िकसी अन्य अिधकारी से करा ली जाती तो नोिटस धारा-67 (1) स्वतः ही िनरस्त हो जाता। 3. यह िक अवर न्यायालय ने अपीलकतार् को कोई साक्ष्य न देने की गलती कर मनमाना आदेश िदनांक 05.12.2024 पािरत कर भारी भूल की है। 4. यह िक अपीलाथीर् के अिधवक्ता ने लेखपाल से िजरह करने हेतु घण्टो अदालत में बैठकर बार बार प्रितक्षा करते रहे परन्तु लेखपाल अदालत में उपिस्थत नहीं हुए और बाद में अवर न्यायालय ने प्राथीर् को लेखपाल से िजरह का अवसर समाप्त कर भारी भूल की है।" 4. The said appeal was dismissed by the order impugned dated 3.7.2025 confirming the order of eviction. Hence, present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the house in question has been constructed over Khasra No. 34 and not on Khasra No. 52 and again a spot inspection has been requested by the petitioner to the revenue authorities. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has defended the order passed by the revenue authorities and submits that petitioner has not taken any stand in regard to his possession over Khasra No. 34 before any of the revenue authority and it is for the first time the said fact has brought to the notice of the Court through present writ petition. 7. After hearing learned counsel for parties and from perusal of the objection as well as memo of appeal filed by petitioner, I find that the only pleading of petitioner before the revenue authorities was that he has not encroached upon Khasra No. 52 WRIC No. 31724 of 2025 2 measuring 0.2780 hectare, which is recorded as public pathway in the revenue records. Nowhere either in objections or in appeal petitioner had brought his case that he is owner in possession of Khasra No. 34. The said new fact has been taken by petitioner at this stage. The revenue authorities after considering the revenue records and report of Revenue Inspector have found that the encroachment has been made by petitioner over Khasra No. 52, which is recorded as public pathway in revenue records and on which a house has been constructed by him. 8. On due consideration of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. September 11, 2025 Shekhar WRIC No. 31724 of 2025 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad