HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31354 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State. 2. Proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 ( hereinafter called as "the Act of 1950") was initiated against petitioner and notice in form 49Ka was issued. Petitioner appeared before revenue authorities and filed his reply. However, petitioner contends that he appeared during proceedings after filing of his reply. An order of eviction was passed on 28.04.2018 imposing damages. After a delay of 7 years, an appeal under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed in which ground no. 6 was taken that no opportunity of hearing was given by revenue authorities before passing the order of eviction. Ground no. 8 was taken that petitioner had gone outside and he returned back on 08.04.2025 and came to know about passing of eviction order and, thereafter, he contacted his counsel and filed the appeal. 3. The appellate court after noticing the fact that Gata No. 658 has been recorded as a khalihan which is public utility land under Section 77 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had passed the order for eviction. There is no denial to the fact that petitioner is not in possession of the Gata No. 658 which is recorded as public utility land. The order of Tehsildar clearly demonstrates that petitioner had appeared and filed reply to the notice issued in Form 49Ka in proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act of 1950. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sheetla Sahai Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C. Harishchandra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The argument raised as to not affording opportunity of hearing cannot be accepted as the objection was filed by petitioner himself. As far as delay caused in filing the appeal is concerned, there is no plausible reason given in memo of appeal and only fact has been given that when petitioner returned on 08.04.2025 he came to know about the eviction order. There is no disclosure as to the date when petitioner left his village and on which date he returned back and where he was living for seven years. The appellate court after recording categorical finding that land has been recorded as a public utility land has proceeded to upheld the order of eviction. 5. Moreover, the petitioner had already filed a restoration application on 04.08.2018 before authorities for recalling the eviction order which clearly demonstrates that petitioner was well aware of the eviction order passed in the year 2018. 6. No case for interference is made out. 7. The writ petition is misconceived and stands dismissed. September 10, 2025 V.S.Singh WRIC No. 31354 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad