HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31698 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Proceedings for eviction under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against one Sati Ram for Gata No. 608 measuring 0.076 hectare over part of which petitioners' father is said to have encroached upon. Notices were issued but after filing vakalatnama on behalf of Sati Ram no one appeared during eviction proceedings and order of eviction was passed. The sons of Sati Ram filed an appeal under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Collector, Azamgarh wherein in paragraph no. 3 it has been specifically stated that Gata No. 608 measuring 0.076 hectare was given for tree plantation to Sati Ram in the year 1999 by the District Magistrate/District Horticulture Officer. In paragraph no. 4 of the appeal it has been further averred that out of area of 0.076 hectare a construction was raised over 0.020 hectare for irrigation purpose. The said appeal has been dismissed by the order impugned dated 22.8.2025 on the ground that the alleged permission of the Collector was not on record nor any document was brought on record to substantiate that the land in question was given to Sati Ram in the year 1999 by the district authorities for tree plantation. 3. After hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing the material on record, I find that it is an admitted case of the petitioners that the Gata No. 608 is the land of State. Petitioners are trying to establish that father of petitioners Sati Ram was granted plantation lease in the year 1999 but no Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devbratt Yadav, Ram Pratap Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Sanjay Giri And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) material has been brought on record to demonstrate the said fact that the land in question has been allotted to petitioners' father in the year 1999 by the District Magistrate/District Horticulture Officer. 4. Once it is an admitted case that petitioners are occupying the land of State without any valid license or agreement, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The order of eviction has rightly been passed by the revenue authorities and same has been upheld by the appellate authority. 5. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. September 11, 2025 Shekhar WRIC No. 31698 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad