HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31313 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Petitioners before this Court claim that proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred as the 'Code of 2006') were initiated against them and notice in Form RC 20 was issued. The Tehsildar, Kerakat, Jaunpur, after making spot inspection found that no such encroachment was made by petitioners and dropped the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 against the petitioners on 20.12.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, Virendra, Ramesh and Hari Shankar filed an appeal under Section 67 (5) of the Code of 2006 assailing the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 20.12.2024. In the said appeal both the petitioners were not arrayed as proforma respondents. The appellate court by the order impugned dated 2.6.2025 had allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar to decide the same afresh setting aside the order dated 20.12.2024. 2. Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners, submits that the order impugned in entirety could not have been set aside by the appellate authority without hearing the petitioners as proceedings under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 against the petitioners were dropped. He further contends that cause of action only survives against the private respondent nos. 5 to 7 against whom eviction order was passed and the order dated 20.12.2024 dropping the proceedings against the petitioners should not have been set aside. 3. Learned Standing Counsel has defended the order passed by the revenue authorities. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mamta Tiwari, Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C. Subedar And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. It is an admitted case that proceedings under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 were not only against the petitioners but also against the private respondent nos. 5 to 7. It was after spot inspection report was submitted by the Tehsildar proceedings against the petitioners were dropped and by the same order dated 20.12.2024 it was directed that the Revenue Inspector should submit report against the persons encroaching upon the land of Gaon Sabha. In the appeal preferred by private respondent nos. 5 to 7, petitioners were not arrayed as party and they were not given the chance to defend the order dated 20.12.2024 by which proceedings were dropped against them. 5. The appellate authority had committed error by allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the Tehsildar setting aside the order dated 20.12.2024 in entirety. The appellate authority could have only set aside the order as far as Virendra, Ramesh and Hari Shankar, respondent nos. 5 to 7/appellants, were concerned and not against the petitioners because they were not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Further, the appellate authority was not correct in taking up the matter suo moto under Section 67 (5) of the Code of 2006. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order dated 2.6.2025 setting aside the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Tehsildar in entirety is illegal and arbitrary and, as such, the same is set aside to the extent that the remand order shall not be considered for the petitioners and their case shall not be reopened and Tehsildar will proceed afresh in pursuance to the remand order in the matter of private respondent nos. 5 to 7. 7. Writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The order dated 2.6.2025 passed by the appellate authority is modified to the extent as stated above. September 10, 2025 Shekhar WRIC No. 31313 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad