HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31361 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Proceeding for eviction against petitioner was initiated by Gaon Sabha on the ground that petitioner is occupying Gata No. 944 which is recorded as a pond in the revenue records in Category 6(2). Petitioner had filed his objection which was repelled by Tehsildar and order of eviction was passed. Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in which ground was taken that no opportunity of hearing was given before eviction order was passed in memo of appeal. The grounds taken were as under:- "1- यह िक अधीनस्थ न्यायालय के िनणर्य िदनांकी 23.12.24 िविध के सारवान िसद्धान्तों के िवपरीत तथा पत्रावली में उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों के िवपरीत पािरत िकया गया है, जो िस्थर रहने योग्य नहीं है। 2- यह िक अधीनस्थ न्यायालय द्वारा अपीलाथीर् को कोई भी सूचना प्रेिषत नहीं की गयी न ही उनका पक्ष रखने का अवसर िदया गया और न ही हल्का लेखपाल से िजरह इत्यािद कराई गयी है। 3- यह िक अधीनस्थ न्यायालय द्वारा अपीलकतार् को साक्ष्य का समुिचत अवसर नहीं िदया गया है और जल्दबाजी में िनणर्य पािरत िकया गया है। 4- यह िक अधीनस्थ न्यायालय द्वारा उ०प्र०रा० संिहता तथा िनयमावली का पालन नहीं िकया गया है न ही प्रािवधानों के अनुरूप आदेश िकया गया है। 5- यह िक अधीनस्थ न्यायालय द्वारा अपने क्षेत्रािधकार से परे जाकर एकतरफा रूप से िनणर्य पािरत िकया गया है। उक्त िनणर्य िनरस्त होने योग्य है।" Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dhiranjan Singh Patel, Sheo Kinkar Singh, Suryaprakash Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C. Asharam Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 2. The appellate court after perusing the grounds as raised in the appeal had dismissed the appeal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State. 4. From perusal of grounds mentioned in memo of appeal, it is clear that petitioner has not denied the fact that he has not constructed his house over Gata No. 944. Moreover, the order of Tehsildar clearly demonstrates that objections were filed by petitioner against notice issued in RC Form 20. Thus, order passed by Tehsildar for eviction cannot be said to be an ex-parte order. 5. From perusal of the material on record, it is clear that Gata No. 944 is recorded as a pond and is a public utility land recorded under Category 6(2). The construction made over public utility land cannot exist amounting to encroachment. The revenue authorities have rightly proceeded to pass the order for eviction. 6. No case for interference is made out. 7. However, in case, any construction does not exist over Gata No. 944, it may not be demolished. September 10, 2025 V.S.Singh WRIC No. 31361 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad