HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 29905 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to serve the copy of the instant petition to Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Land Management Committee concerned within one week. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Land Management Committee. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: " I. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.02.2026 passed by Assistant Collector/Tehsildar Sadar, Varanasi in Case No. 53215/2025 being Computer Case No. T202514700153215 (Report Lekhpal Vs Suresh Singh) and its consequential proceedings whereby the eviction from the Arazi No. 616-area about 7.2 square meter situated at Village Harpalpur, Pargana Dehat Amanat, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi, as well as the recovery of damages for tune of Rs. 18,000/- have been issued against the Petitioner. II. Issue a writ order direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/restraining to the respondent authorities, to realize the damages of tune of Rs. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Tiwari, Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Suresh Singh @ Suresh Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 18,000/-." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order for eviction and damages has been passed by Tehsildar under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the petitioner. He submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by Tehsildar, the encroachment which was found over the plot in question has been removed by the petitioner himself, as such the order for damages which has been passed in arbitrary manner against the petitioner should be set aside. He submitted that since the construction of boundary wall made over plot in question has already been removed by the petitioner, as such alternative remedy of appeal will not be bar for the petitioner to challenge the order of Tehsildar before this Court. 5. Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, as such writ petition cannot be entertained. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that order for eviction and damages has been passed against the petitioner in respect to the plot in question in the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 8. It is material to mention that order of Tehsildar passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 can be challenged in appeal under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is finally disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file appeal under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before respondent no. 2- Collector-Varanasi, District-Varanasi within a period of three weeks from today along with prayer for condonation of delay. The Appellate Court shall consider and decide the appeal expeditiously considering the delay condonation application first taking liberal view on delay condonation as delay is not inordinate. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall serve the copy of this order also to Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the WRIC No. 29905 of 2026 2 Land Management Committee along with copy of writ petition. within period of one week. September 17, 2026 PS* WRIC No. 29905 of 2026 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad