JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 5 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Mr. Azad Khan, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no.6. Heard learned counsel for the partied and perused the records. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 11.8.2016, passed in Case No.395, filed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code as well as order dated 14.12.2016, passed in Case No.D2016042302238 filed under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, whereby the fifth respondent/Tehsildar Sohawal, District Faizabad has ordered for removal of illegal encroachment of the petitioner over Gata No.640 measuring 0.018 hectare and has imposed damages of Rs.57,600/- and the appeal preferred against the said order has been dismissed by third respondent/Chief Revenue Officer, District Faizabad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the brother of the petitioner had filed a public interest litigation alleging encroachment over talab land at Gata Nos.636, 637, 638, 639 and 640 situated in Village Arthar, Pargana Magalsi, Tehsil Sohawal, District Faizabad. When the orders passed by the Court were not complied the contempt petition was filed in which counter affidavit was filed by respondents indicating the name of 17 persons who had been found in illegal possession/encroachment and against whom the proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act have been initiated. In the said counter affidavit the name of petitioner was not mentioned, however, subsequent to the disposal of the contempt petition the respondents with malafide intention had issued notice to the petitioner and had initiated the proceedings for removal of illegal encroachment of petitioner over Gata No.640 and a case under Section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code was filed. The petitioner had filed objection in the said case, however, without properly considering the objection the impugned order dated 11.8.2016 was passed. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the said order had preferred an appeal before third respondent which has been decided vide impugned order dated 14.12.2016 and the impugned order dated 11.8.2016 has been upheld. 4. The petitioner had filed objection in the said case, however, without properly considering the objection the impugned order dated 11.8.2016 was passed. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the said order had preferred an appeal before third respondent which has been decided vide impugned order dated 14.12.2016 and the impugned order dated 11.8.2016 has been upheld. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner had specifically taken the objection that without getting the demarcation of boundaries and survey commission it could not have been held that the petitioner has encroached over the land in question and first the demarcation of boundaries and survey commission may be done and only thereafter the proceeding initiated under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code be decided. It is also submitted that the appellate authority without properly considering the contentions raised by petitioner has dismissed the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the contention that the fifth respondent in most arbitrary and illegal manner has imposed heavy damages amounting to Rs.57,000/- on the petitioner whereas against similarly situated other persons lessor damages have been imposed. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has been found guilty of illegally encroaching the gaon sabha land which has been recorded as talab in the revenue records, as such, proceedings were initiated against him for removal of encroachment under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code. The petitioner has been given opportunity in the said proceedings and considering the evidence on record the competent authority has passed the order for removal of the possession of the petitioner which does not require any interference. It is also submitted that the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order, that too, has been dismissed on merit. 7. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 8. So far as the alleged encroachment by the petitioner over land in question is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any evidence on record where the name of petitioner was recorded in the revenue records over the land in question. The land in question is undisputedly recorded as talab land in the revenue records and the talab land cannot be transferred in any manner in the name of any villager including the petitioner. The land in question is undisputedly recorded as talab land in the revenue records and the talab land cannot be transferred in any manner in the name of any villager including the petitioner. The petitioner even if claims his possession from the time before coming into force of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, he cannot get the benefit of Section 9 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for getting the regularization of that possession. 9. In view of above, I do not find any reason to grant indulgence in the orders impugned, so far as the encroachment of the petitioner over the land in question is concerned. However, it is to be noted that while imposing the damages the fifth respondent appears to have been harsh on the petitioner. Under similar facts and circumstances in the cases of Gaon Sabha Vs. Dhruv Prasad and Gaon Sabha Vs. Smt. Vidya who were also found to have encroached upon the talab land situated on the same gata number i.e. 640 have been imposed the damages of Rs.1890/- and Rs.840/- respectively. The allegation of encroachment of land by Dhruv Prasad is of higher denomination than the petitioner, however, he has been imposed lessor damages. As such, I find it to be discriminatory. 10. The petitioner therefore is entitled to get the similar treatment as for as damages are concerned. The orders impugned dated 11.8.2016 as well as 14.12.2016 are therefore modified to the extent that damages to the tune of Rs.800/- only be imposed on the petitioner. Remaining part of impugned orders shall remain intact and have not been interfered with. 11. The writ petition with the aforesaid observations is disposed of.