HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32870 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Proceedings for eviction under Section 67 was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that he has encroached upon the land over Arazi No. 111 measuring 0.020 Hectare which is the land of Gaon Sabha recorded as a 'pit', that is, public utility land. As no objections were filed, the order for eviction was passed ex-parte. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a recall application where he has taken a stand that his house is standing over his bhumidhari and has not encroached upon the land of the Gaon Sabha. After the recall application was dismissed, an appeal under Section 67(5) was filed which has also been dismissed noting the fact that the house has been constructed over the land of the Gaon Sabha which has been recorded as a 'pit'. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the house so constructed is next to the land of the Gaon Sabha which is recorded as a pit. Apart from this, no other argument has been placed. 3. Learned Standing Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the finding recorded by the appellate authority wherein the appellate authority has recorded that already the petitioner has moved an application for exchanging the land in question under Section 77 and the matter is pending consideration. According to him, no question arises for exchanging the land in question if no encroachment was made. 4. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Kishore Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti Ram Ratan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. From the perusal of the recall application as well as the appeal filed by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner claims that he has constructed his house over his bhumidhari land. No description has been given either in the recall application or in the memo of appeal only bald assertions has been made that the house exists on the bhumidhari land. 6. In view of the finding recorded by the both the revenue authorities that the petitioner has constructed a house over the land of the Gaon Sabha recorded as pit in Gata No. 111, I find that no case for interference is made out. 7. The writ petition fails and stands dismissed. 8. However, before demolishing the construction made by the petitioner, the revenue authorities shall demarcate the land of the pit of Arazi No. 111 recorded in the revenue records and thereafter, after ascertaining the fact that encroachment exists then only proceed with the demolition of the house in question. However, if the authorities find that no such encroachment has been made over the land of the Gaon Sabha then the structure standing thereon shall not be demolished and no damages shall be recovered from the petitioner. September 18, 2025 A. V. Singh WRIC No. 32870 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad