HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17913 of 2026 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. 1. Heard Sri Amar Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs: - "i- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31-5-2025 passed Respondent No.2/District Magistrate Jaunpur in Case No. 5049/2024 Computer Case No. D202414360005049 (Kamal Sen Vs. State of U.P. and others) under section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and order dated 25-11-2024 passed by Respondent No.2/Assistant Collector-Ist/Tehsildar Kerakat, Jaunpur in case 00157/2020 Case No. No. computer T202014360500157 (Lekhpal Report vs. Kamal u/s 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (Annexure No.1 and 2). ii- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the parties to maintain status quo on spot over the Plot No.1107/040 Hectare situated at Village Kachhawan Pargana and Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither Assistant Collector (1st Class), nor Collector, Jaunpur while deciding the appeal had considered the objections of the petitioner in their correct perspective. He further submits that the petitioner was not even present when the inspection was done and on the basis of which, the report dated Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amar Nath Pandey, Ashish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C. Kamal Sen Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 20.01.2019 was prepared and therefore, the entire order which is based on an ex parte report, is not sustainable. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel representing the State respondents, submits that the petitioner himself admits to have encroached upon 0.004 hectares of land of Gata No. 1107M, which is recorded as a pond (gaddha) and the proceedings have been expedited pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2023, passed in PIL No. 481 of 2023 (Chhaya Singh vs. State of U.P.). 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the petitioner himself admits to have encroached upon the land, it is not open for him to dispute the correctness of the order or the inspection report. This fact of admission has also been taken note in the order of Collector, Jaunpur dated 31.05.2025, which is as under: - "चूंिक आ०नं० 1107 िम० का रकबा बहुत छोटा है और न जानकारी में िनमार्ण हो गया है तो अपीलकतार् खुद बगल में सटी अपनी आ०नं० 1117 में से उतना रकबा देने को तैयार है जैसा िक माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के अपने अनेक िनणर्यों में मत ्ि्व िकया है।" 6. Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek such remedy of exchange as he has pleaded before the authority concerned. 7. The petition stands disposed of. May 6, 2026 Jaideep/- WRIC No. 17913 of 2026 2 (Vivek Saran,J.) Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad