LUCKNOW vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Of

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

2. In light of the proposed order to be passed, issuance of notice to respondent No. 5 is dispensed with.

3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.09.2024 passed by Tehsildar, Devi Patan, District - Shravasti in proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code where he has held the petitioner to have encroached upon the Gata No. 70 situated in Gram Belkar, Pargana and Tehsil - Ikauna, District Shravasti and also imposed penalty upon the petitioner. The petitioner has further assailed the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Shravasti where the appeal of the petitioner has also been rejected and the order of the Tehsildar dated 23.09.2024 has been upheld.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had received a notice in Form-20 with regard to allegation that he has encroached upon the gaon sabha land in Gata No. 70 in Village - Belkar, Pargana and Tehsil - Ikauna, District Shravasti which is recorded as Rasta. The petitioner duly put in appearance and filed his objections before the Tehsildar. 2 WRIC No. 8075 of 2025

5. The Tehsildar duly considered the objections preferred by the petitioner and also considered the report submitted by the Lekhpal. A finding was returned by him that the petitioner has encroached upon Gata No. 70 area

0.0181hect. where 50 sq. meters of land has been encroached upon by the petitioner and his sons by making a house. He has relied upon the report of the Regional Lekhpal which confirmed the said fact and accordingly rejected the objections filed by the petitioner.

6. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Tehsildar, it seems on the date fixed the petitioner did not appear and the appellate authority duly considered the averments made in the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Tehsildar U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code and dismissed the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner has not been considered by the authorities below and accordingly prayed for setting aside both the impugned orders. He further submits that no inquiry was conducted according to the rules and for this reason also the impugned orders declaring the petitioner to have encroached upon the gaon sabha land are illegal and arbitrary.

8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of report of the Lekhpal and the objections of the petitioner as well as report of the Lekhpal was duly considered by the Tehsildar wherein the impugned order dated 23.09.2024 holding the petitioner to have encroached upon the gaon sabha land. He has further submitted that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner himself and he himself did not appear and consequently cannot find fault of the appellate authority in not affording him opportunity of hearing. Even in the present writ petition, it is stated that no cogent reason has been given for non-appearance before the appellate authority.

9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

10. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing and nor was his objections considered at any stage in the said proceedings. From the record, this Court finds that agaisnt the 3 WRIC No. 8075 of 2025 notice, Form-20 was issued to the petitioner, detailed objections were filed by him before the Tehsildar. In the said objections, it has been stated that the Gata No. 70 was earlier numbered as Gata No. 52 and was recorded as the public-way (Rasta). He has further stated that house of the petitioner has been built prior to the consolidation operations and in case the house of the petitioner was on the gaon sabha land, the same would have been noticed by the consolidation authorities but submits that no such objections was raised during the consolidation proceedings.

11. He has further stated that on the previous occasion a report was submitted by the Lekhpal with regard to Gata No. 70 where it has been stated that there is no obstruction on the said public-way and consequently it cannot be said that the petitioner has encroached upon the gaon sabha land situated at Gata No. 70. Lastly it has been stated that a complaint has been made against the petitioner due to previous enmity by respondent No. 5.

12. Accordingly, a perusal of the objections filed by the petitioner before the Tehsildar does not clearly indicate that he has not encroached upon the Gata No. 70 which is recorded as Gaon Sabha land. It is in fact admitted that an old construction is existing which is within the abadi. From the order of the Tehsildar, this Court finds that the Regional Lekhpal has stated that it is in fact it has constructed a house on Gata No. 70 which is the public-way (Rasta) and even in the objections filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has tried to support the construction made by him but does not in any unequivocal words states that the petitioner has not raised construction on Gata No. 70.

13. Further, a third party dispute has been sought to be raised in the present proceedings with regard to Gata No. 76 which are on the clear opinion was not required to be decided in the present proceedings. The only issue before the Tehsildar was with regard to encroachment made on the gaon sabha land by the petitioner. With regard to opportunity of hearing as submitted by the petitioner, this Court finds that before the Tehsildar, he had filed his objections and also appeared in the said proceedings which were duly considered and the impugned order holding the petitioner has encroached upon Gata No. 70. 4 WRIC No. 8075 of 2025

14. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner himself and he did not appear before the appellate authority resulting in the order dated 21.01.2025. This Court does not find any averment give any cogent reason for his non-appearance before the appellate authority and accordingly in the aforesaid circumstances the appellate authority after considering the entire material on record has concurred with the order of the Tehsidlar. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that full opportunity of hearing has been given by the authorities to the petitioner and accordingly on this ground also the impugned order cannot be faulted. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned order, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. August 27, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

2. In light of the proposed order to be passed, issuance of notice to respondent No. 5 is dispensed with.

3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.09.2024 passed by Tehsildar, Devi Patan, District - Shravasti in proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code where he has held the petitioner to have encroached upon the Gata No. 70 situated in Gram Belkar, Pargana and Tehsil - Ikauna, District Shravasti and also imposed penalty upon the petitioner. The petitioner has further assailed the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Shravasti where the appeal of the petitioner has also been rejected and the order of the Tehsildar dated 23.09.2024 has been upheld.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had received a notice in Form-20 with regard to allegation that he has encroached upon the gaon sabha land in Gata No. 70 in Village - Belkar, Pargana and Tehsil - Ikauna, District Shravasti which is recorded as Rasta. The petitioner duly put in appearance and filed his objections before the Tehsildar. 2 WRIC No. 8075 of 2025

5. The Tehsildar duly considered the objections preferred by the petitioner and also considered the report submitted by the Lekhpal. A finding was returned by him that the petitioner has encroached upon Gata No. 70 area

0.0181hect. where 50 sq. meters of land has been encroached upon by the petitioner and his sons by making a house. He has relied upon the report of the Regional Lekhpal which confirmed the said fact and accordingly rejected the objections filed by the petitioner.

6. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Tehsildar, it seems on the date fixed the petitioner did not appear and the appellate authority duly considered the averments made in the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Tehsildar U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code and dismissed the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner has not been considered by the authorities below and accordingly prayed for setting aside both the impugned orders. He further submits that no inquiry was conducted according to the rules and for this reason also the impugned orders declaring the petitioner to have encroached upon the gaon sabha land are illegal and arbitrary.

8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of report of the Lekhpal and the objections of the petitioner as well as report of the Lekhpal was duly considered by the Tehsildar wherein the impugned order dated 23.09.2024 holding the petitioner to have encroached upon the gaon sabha land. He has further submitted that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner himself and he himself did not appear and consequently cannot find fault of the appellate authority in not affording him opportunity of hearing. Even in the present writ petition, it is stated that no cogent reason has been given for non-appearance before the appellate authority.

9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

10. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing and nor was his objections considered at any stage in the said proceedings. From the record, this Court finds that agaisnt the 3 WRIC No. 8075 of 2025 notice, Form-20 was issued to the petitioner, detailed objections were filed by him before the Tehsildar. In the said objections, it has been stated that the Gata No. 70 was earlier numbered as Gata No. 52 and was recorded as the public-way (Rasta). He has further stated that house of the petitioner has been built prior to the consolidation operations and in case the house of the petitioner was on the gaon sabha land, the same would have been noticed by the consolidation authorities but submits that no such objections was raised during the consolidation proceedings.

11. He has further stated that on the previous occasion a report was submitted by the Lekhpal with regard to Gata No. 70 where it has been stated that there is no obstruction on the said public-way and consequently it cannot be said that the petitioner has encroached upon the gaon sabha land situated at Gata No. 70. Lastly it has been stated that a complaint has been made against the petitioner due to previous enmity by respondent No. 5.

12. Accordingly, a perusal of the objections filed by the petitioner before the Tehsildar does not clearly indicate that he has not encroached upon the Gata No. 70 which is recorded as Gaon Sabha land. It is in fact admitted that an old construction is existing which is within the abadi. From the order of the Tehsildar, this Court finds that the Regional Lekhpal has stated that it is in fact it has constructed a house on Gata No. 70 which is the public-way (Rasta) and even in the objections filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has tried to support the construction made by him but does not in any unequivocal words states that the petitioner has not raised construction on Gata No. 70.

13. Further, a third party dispute has been sought to be raised in the present proceedings with regard to Gata No. 76 which are on the clear opinion was not required to be decided in the present proceedings. The only issue before the Tehsildar was with regard to encroachment made on the gaon sabha land by the petitioner. With regard to opportunity of hearing as submitted by the petitioner, this Court finds that before the Tehsildar, he had filed his objections and also appeared in the said proceedings which were duly considered and the impugned order holding the petitioner has encroached upon Gata No. 70. 4 WRIC No. 8075 of 2025

14. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner himself and he did not appear before the appellate authority resulting in the order dated 21.01.2025. This Court does not find any averment give any cogent reason for his non-appearance before the appellate authority and accordingly in the aforesaid circumstances the appellate authority after considering the entire material on record has concurred with the order of the Tehsidlar. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that full opportunity of hearing has been given by the authorities to the petitioner and accordingly on this ground also the impugned order cannot be faulted. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned order, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. August 27, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench