HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32441 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no encroachment has been made by the petitioner over Gata No. 836, which is recorded as the banjer land of the Gaon Sabha. According to the petitioner's counsel, the constructions is existing over Gata No. 843 and 844 recorded in the revenue records in the name of the institution through its Manager- Abdul Salam. He further submits that specific ground was taken in appeal which is ground no. 5, wherein, it has been stated that the construction exists on Gata No. 843 and 844 and not on Gata No. 836. According to him, no finding has been recorded by the appellate authority while passing the order impugned. 2. Learned Standing Counsel has defended the order passed by the revenue authorities. 3. Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha submits that encroachment is standing over Gata No. 836 and he further fairly accepts that the finding has not been recorded by the appellate authority to the extent that the construction of the petitioner is over Gata No. 836 along with construction over Gata Nos. 843 and 844. 4. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta Abdul Salam .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Petitioner had taken specific ground in his appeal under Section 67(5) that no constructions is lying over Gata No. 836 and only construction has been made is over Gata No. 843 and 844, which is the land of the petitioner recorded in the revenue records. The appellate authority without considering the ground raised in the appeal has dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Tehsildar for eviction and imposing damages. 6. In view of the said fact, the order dated 12.08.2025 and 16.04.2025 are illegal and arbitary and is liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside. 7. The writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to accord fresh consideration to the appeal and after hearing the parties and taking into the consideration the ground raised in the appeal, decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. September 17, 2025 A. V. Singh WRIC No. 32441 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad