Rajesh Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt.,

1. Heard Ms. Sunita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

2. In light of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a house was built by the ancestor of the petitioner on the disputed land situated at Gata No. 381 Kha, situated at Gram Jamalpur, Pargana Aldemau, Tehsil Kadipur, District -Sultanpur. In the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, it was found that the petitioner is encroaching 630 Sq. Meters of the disputed land. It is during the said proceedings the petitioner claimed his right for the portion of the disputed land to be settled in his favour in terms of Section 67 (A) of the U.P. Revenue Code.

4. Accordingly, while deciding the matter under Section 67 -A of the U.P. Revenue Code, the Tehsildar also considered the aspect of settlement of the part of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner and revenue report was called for in this regard. It is on the basis of the aforesaid material submitted by the petitioner as well as the Revenue Authority it was found that the construction made by the petitioner was existing prior to cut of date and it was the land on which the rights of the petitioner 2 WRIC No. 10868 of 2025 could be settled under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code but the only limitation was that under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code a maximum land of 200 Sq. Meter could be settled in favour of the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, the Tehsildar gave benefit of provision of Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code and held that the petitioner was entitled to retain and continue to be in occupation of 200 Sq. Meter but found that the petitioner was in illegal occupation of the excess land and accordingly orders for eviction and imposition of penalty for the amount of Rs. 61,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. It is against the order of Tehsildar dated 15.7.2024 the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was rejected on the ground of maintainability, in as much as, it was held that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, rather in filing appeal under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code.

6. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.1.2025 and 15.7.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only to the aspect of imposition of penalty. It was stated that the prayer of the petitioner already stands allowed and the Tehsildar itself, who had allowed the application under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code and settled 200 Sq. Meters on the disputed land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has confined his arguments only the imposition of penalty of Rs. 61,000/- which according to him is highly excessive considering the facts that the petitioner is a poor and marginalize farmer and has occupied the land which was covered by Section 67 -A of the U.P. Revenue Code.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and also submitted that out of the total encroached area by the petitioner, the Tehsildar has rightly settled holding 200 Sq. Meters in his favour and therefore, no infirmity has been committed in the present writ petition.

8. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that the Tehsildar has rightly invoked the provision of Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code 3 WRIC No. 10868 of 2025 and settled 200 Sq. Meter of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner. As the petitioner has confined his prayer to the order under Section 67-A of the Revenue Code, we are not inclined to go into or interfere with regard to the order under Section 67 of Revenue Code. Now the question is as considering the facts that the occupation of the petitioner is 630 Sq. Meters, out of which the petitioner can retain only 200 Sq. Meters then the option of which portion is to be retained by the petitioner should be left to be exercised by the petitioner.

9. With regard to the imposition of the penalty, this Court is the considered view that once portion of the land has been settled in favour of the petitioner, then Rs. 61,000/- is highly excessive and the interest of justice would sub serve by imposing of penalty of Rs. 10, 000/- and accordingly in the impugned order let Rs. 61,000/- be in place as Rs. 10,000/-. With regard to the choice of the portion which the petitioner wants to retain, it is provided that let an application in this regard be submitted to the Tehsildar within next 10 days along with certified copy of this order indicating as to which portion of the disputed property measuring 200 Sq. Meters the petitioner with his to retain of the disputed property. On submission of application, the Tehsildar will make relevant inquiries as far as possible confined the petitioner to the option exercised by him with regard to the settlement in his favour under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code. Let it be expedited, expeditiously, say within a period of four weeks from the certified copy of this order is produced before it.

11. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands partly allowed. November 13, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Ms. Sunita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

2. In light of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a house was built by the ancestor of the petitioner on the disputed land situated at Gata No. 381 Kha, situated at Gram Jamalpur, Pargana Aldemau, Tehsil Kadipur, District -Sultanpur. In the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, it was found that the petitioner is encroaching 630 Sq. Meters of the disputed land. It is during the said proceedings the petitioner claimed his right for the portion of the disputed land to be settled in his favour in terms of Section 67 (A) of the U.P. Revenue Code.

4. Accordingly, while deciding the matter under Section 67 -A of the U.P. Revenue Code, the Tehsildar also considered the aspect of settlement of the part of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner and revenue report was called for in this regard. It is on the basis of the aforesaid material submitted by the petitioner as well as the Revenue Authority it was found that the construction made by the petitioner was existing prior to cut of date and it was the land on which the rights of the petitioner 2 WRIC No. 10868 of 2025 could be settled under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code but the only limitation was that under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code a maximum land of 200 Sq. Meter could be settled in favour of the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, the Tehsildar gave benefit of provision of Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code and held that the petitioner was entitled to retain and continue to be in occupation of 200 Sq. Meter but found that the petitioner was in illegal occupation of the excess land and accordingly orders for eviction and imposition of penalty for the amount of Rs. 61,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. It is against the order of Tehsildar dated 15.7.2024 the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was rejected on the ground of maintainability, in as much as, it was held that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, rather in filing appeal under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code.

6. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.1.2025 and 15.7.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only to the aspect of imposition of penalty. It was stated that the prayer of the petitioner already stands allowed and the Tehsildar itself, who had allowed the application under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code and settled 200 Sq. Meters on the disputed land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has confined his arguments only the imposition of penalty of Rs. 61,000/- which according to him is highly excessive considering the facts that the petitioner is a poor and marginalize farmer and has occupied the land which was covered by Section 67 -A of the U.P. Revenue Code.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and also submitted that out of the total encroached area by the petitioner, the Tehsildar has rightly settled holding 200 Sq. Meters in his favour and therefore, no infirmity has been committed in the present writ petition.

8. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that the Tehsildar has rightly invoked the provision of Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code 3 WRIC No. 10868 of 2025 and settled 200 Sq. Meter of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner. As the petitioner has confined his prayer to the order under Section 67-A of the Revenue Code, we are not inclined to go into or interfere with regard to the order under Section 67 of Revenue Code. Now the question is as considering the facts that the occupation of the petitioner is 630 Sq. Meters, out of which the petitioner can retain only 200 Sq. Meters then the option of which portion is to be retained by the petitioner should be left to be exercised by the petitioner.

9. With regard to the imposition of the penalty, this Court is the considered view that once portion of the land has been settled in favour of the petitioner, then Rs. 61,000/- is highly excessive and the interest of justice would sub serve by imposing of penalty of Rs. 10, 000/- and accordingly in the impugned order let Rs. 61,000/- be in place as Rs. 10,000/-. With regard to the choice of the portion which the petitioner wants to retain, it is provided that let an application in this regard be submitted to the Tehsildar within next 10 days along with certified copy of this order indicating as to which portion of the disputed property measuring 200 Sq. Meters the petitioner with his to retain of the disputed property. On submission of application, the Tehsildar will make relevant inquiries as far as possible confined the petitioner to the option exercised by him with regard to the settlement in his favour under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code. Let it be expedited, expeditiously, say within a period of four weeks from the certified copy of this order is produced before it.

11. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands partly allowed. November 13, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench