HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 38492 of 2026 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by orders passed under Sections 67 and 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ('the Code') respectively in Cases No. 11043 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. T202314360411043 (Report Lekhpal Vs. Kalpnath) and Case No. 2930 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. D202414360002930) (Kalpnath Vs. State). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders have been passed ignoring the material evidence on record, which, if perused, indicate that the petitioner would not have been held as an encroacher over the navin parti land and, therefore, the orders impugned are unsustainable. 3. Shri Indramani Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Amit Gupta, holding brief of Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submit that the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code despite service of notice and even in the appeal, he did not appear to argue the matter and, therefore, the authorities were justified in passing the orders impugned. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that specific finding has been recorded against the petitioner in the order dated 27.01.2024, i.e. despite service of notice he did not appear in the proceedings and, therefore, after recording the statement of Lekhpal and based upon the record position, the order was passed. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar Maurya, Kamala Shanker Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C. Kalpnath .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Although the petitioner could have filed a recall application under Section 209(h) of the Code, he chose to file an appeal under Section 67(5) of the Code and even in the appeal, neither he nor his counsel appeared to argue the matter. Under such circumstances, the appellate authority again based upon the record and hearing the respondent side, dismissed the appeal on merits. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that if the parties avoid participation in the proceedings for any reason whatsoever, the authorities cannot keep the matter pending before them indefinitely and, therefore, the Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. 7. The petition stands dismissed. September 23, 2026 AKShukla/- WRIC No. 38492 of 2026 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad