HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31673 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Petitioner before this Court has questioned the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Tehsildar as well as the order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Tehsildar, Kairana on the restoration application as well as the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Collector, District Shamli in the appeal filed under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, was initiated against the petitioner way back in the year 2017 on the ground that he has encroached upon the land on Khasra No. 18, measuring 0.0844 Hectare which was recorded as public way. Notices were issued but as the same remained unresponded. The revenue authorities proceeded to record the statement of the Revenue Inspector and after considering the report, passed an order for eviction as well as imposed the damages of Rs. 73,391/-. The petitioner on coming to know about the said order moved a restoration application on 08.08.2019, which was partly allowed to the extent that a subsequent inspection report was called which was submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 18.02.2021, which indicated that the encroachment has been removed by the petitioner and the matter only remains as to the consideration of damages. The restoration application was dismissed after recording the said fact and the damages as imposed earlier was maintained. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 67(5) which has been dismissed by the appellate authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the appellate authority itself clearly reveals that the proceedings for eviction was initiated on the report of Revenue Inspector claiming that the encroachment Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mukesh Kumar, Priyavrat Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani Shekhar Kumar And 6 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) existed over the Khasra No. 18 which was recorded as public way in the revenue records. As the proceedings were not contested, the eviction order as well damages were imposed. On the restoration application being filed, the report was called and it was found that there does not exists any encroachment as such only the damages part was maintained. According to him, once there was no encroachment over the land in dispute, the imposition of damages is against the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that earlier round of litigation, the Tehsildar had found that the encroachment existed as such the order for eviction was passed as well as imposed damages. It was subsequently that the encroachment was removed and the damages part was maintained by the revenue authorities. 5. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is an admitted case from the report of the Revenue Inspector dated 18.02.2021 that there is no encroachment over the Khasra No. 18 which is recorded as public way in the revenue records. Once the appellate authority has found that the report of the Revenue Inspector of the year 2021 indicates that no encroachment exists, the appellate authority, should have set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar imposing damages upon the petitioner. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no justification to proceed in imposing damages upon the petitioner once the finding has been recorded by the appellate authority that the encroachment has been removed pursuant to the report of the Revenue Inspector dated 18.02.2021. The order dated 04.08.2025 and 08.03.2021 as well as 28.03.2018 are set aside to the extent imposing damages upon the petitioner. 7. The writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. September 11, 2025 A. V. Singh WRIC No. 31673 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad