HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 37217 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Collector, Pilibhit as respondent no.4 to the writ petition during the course of the day. 2. Heard Mr. Piyush Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anshul Nigam, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ, order or direction to set aside the impugned order dated 8.5.2026 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition) passed by respondent no.2/Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Bisalpur, District Pilibhit in Case No.2077/2025 (Computerized Case No.T202512560202077), under Section 209(Ja) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent no.2/Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Bisalpur, District Pilibhit to receive the petitioner's restoration application and not to reject/refuse to entertain the same merely on account of the impugned order dated 8.5.2026." Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Piyush Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sher Bahadur Singh Major Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier proceeding under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was initiated against the petitioner which was dropped by the Tehsildar, recording finding that petitioner has no other accommodation in the village in question, as such, the order for eviction will cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. He further submitted that the plot in question is recorded as Usar. He also submitted that subsequent proceeding has been again initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and order for eviction and damages has been passed in ex parte manner on 27.9.2024, accordingly, restoration application has been filed and the same has been rejected in arbitrary manner on 8.5.2026. He also submitted that the alternative remedy will not be bar for the petitioner to challenge the order of Tehsildar before this Court as impugned order has been passed in illegal manner, as such, the order passed by the Tehsildar should be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that the writ petition against the order of Tehsildar, cannot be entertained as the remedy of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is available to the petitioner. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that an order for eviction and damages has been passed by the Tehsildar in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the restoration application filed on behalf of the petitioner has also been rejected. 8. It is material to mention that an appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is provided against the order of the Tehsildar passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. WRIC No. 37217 of 2026 2 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before respondent no.4/Collector, Pilibhit within a period of 3 weeks from today. It is further directed that respondent No.4/Collector, Pilibhit shall consider and decide the aforementioned appeal on merit, considering the delay condonation matter 1st, expeditiously, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law. September 23, 2026 C.Prakash WRIC No. 37217 of 2026 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad