HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32996 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Proceedings for cancellation under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that she has encroached upon the land of Gaon Sabha which is recorded as navin parti. Notices were issued, but the petitioner never appeared and order of eviction was passed. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 67(5), in which, in paragraphs no.5 & 6, it has been stated that petitioner is a poor lady and she had constructed the house over the land in dispute. Further, it was averred that the land in question does not come under the purview of Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, apart from this, nothing has been averred in the said appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land, during consolidation proceedings, has been recorded as abadi. He further submits that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner way back in the year 1985 along with 38 other persons. 3. Sri Ram Pyare Lal Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for one Devendra Pratap Srivastava, submits that the land was allotted to the intervenor during the consolidation proceedings which has been encroached upon by the petitioner along with other family members who are also occupying the adjoining land. The intervenor has been litigating the matter for long time and had moved the petition for getting the encroachment removed from his land. According to him, during pendency of the Writ-C No.1236 of 2023, construction over the land in question Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jaki Ahmad, Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rampyare Lal Srivastava, Subash Chandra Srivastava Nathoo Sharma @ Nathoo Prasad Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) was started by the petitioner, and the construction has been raised during eviction proceedings. 4. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 5. From perusal of record, I find that the petitioner deliberately skipped the eviction proceedings and did not attend the Court of Tehsildar, however in appeal, only ground taken by the petitioner's counsel is that petitioner is a poor lady who has constructed her house over the land in dispute, and the land does not fall under Section 132 of the Act. Apart from this, nothing has been averred in the said appeal. 6. Once, the petitioner has not brought out any case before the authorities, nor has claimed to be the owner of land in question, the appellate authority was right in rejecting the appeal. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no case for interference is made out in the order impugned. 8. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. September 19, 2025 SK Goswami WRIC No. 32996 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad