JUDGMENT : (Jaspreet Singh, J.) 1. Heard Shri S. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the land management committee. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby an order has been passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 holding that the petitioner has encroached upon the chak-marg which is on gata no.1011, measuring 0.003 hectares and an order of eviction has been passed coupled with imposing a sum of Rs.675 as damages and rupees 1000 as recovery charges. The said order was assailed in appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the appeal has been dismissed by the respondent no.2 by means of order dated 05.04.2024. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily that the dispute which has been raised, has not been appropriatelyconsidered. It is submitted that the petitioner is the tenure holder of his bhumidhari land bearing no.988 measuring 0.6940 hectares in village Mishrauliya, Pargana and Tehsil Ekauna, District Shrawasti. 4. It has also been submitted that demarcation proceedings have been initiated which are engaging the attention of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ekauna. During the pendecny of the aforesaid proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which relates to plot no.988. At the behest of one private person, namely, Kutubuddin under whose influence proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 5. It is urged that in the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, neither proper on site inspection was made nor the Lekhpal had furnished his proper report. The report of the Lekhpal needless to say was not even proved as per law. An alleged inspection report dated 17.01.2024 has been taken as a base and on the very next date i.e. 18.01.2024, the order was passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which clearly indicates that no evidence was adduced and the order impugned dated 18.01.2024 was passed in haste. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while filing the appeal all these issues were raised before the Collector who also did not examine the same in the correct prespective and dismissed the appeal in a cursory manner. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while filing the appeal all these issues were raised before the Collector who also did not examine the same in the correct prespective and dismissed the appeal in a cursory manner. 7. It is also pointed out that from the perusal of the appellate order, it would indicate that as per the said order the alleged encroachment is said to exist on plot no.987, which is recorded in the revenue records as a nali. It is submitted that this is an error apparent on the face of the record to indicate that there has been no proper appreciation of the facts and in a mechanical manner the order has been passed by the appellate authority. 8. It is thus urged that even the appellate order suffers from the vice of being arbitrary and it deserves to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others 2022 SCC Online All. 829. 9. Learned Standing Counsel though made his submissions refuting the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and attempted to justify the impugned orders. However, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that even if at all, the spot inspection was made on 17.01.2024 but no evidence was led to prove the report of the Lekhpal as the order came to be passed on 18.01.2024. He also could not dispute the fact that from the perusal of the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the appellate authority, there is a reference that the encroachment exists on plot no.987 whereas the proceedings before the respondent no.3 was initiated in respect of plot no.1011 which is said to be recorded as a chakmarg. 10. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear view that both the impugned orders suffer from the vice of being arbitrary and definitelythere is no compliance of the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh (supra)wherein this Court has issued the guidelines to be adopted as procedure to be applied to proceedings under Sections 67, 67A and 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "74. Thus, in my view, following guidelines be adopted as procedure to be applied to proceedings under Sections 67,67A and 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code. It is all aimed at ensuring transparency in the procedure, judiciousness in approach by the authorities and to thwart every complaint made with ulterior and oblique motive to dislodge a long settled possession and causing of unnecessary harassment to an innocent villager: (i) In case of complaint made on RC From 19, the official making it shall ensure that proper survey is done in the light of observations made in this judgment; the land, occupation of which has stood identified to be unauthorized is in exact measurement and so also shown in the survey map prepared on scale, as per the Land Revenue Survey Regulations, 1978; the exact assessment of damages on the basis of circle rate with details of calculation made on that basis. (ii) In a case of suo motu action, before issuing RC Form 20, the authority will ensure that proper report upon RC Form 19 is submitted as per para (i) above on parameters of subrule 1 Rule 67. (iii) RC Form 20 must be accompanied by a copy of report and spot survey submitted alongwith RC Form 19 to the person against whom proceedings have been instituted, or even otherwise submitted in case of suo motu action vide para (ii) above. (iv) Upon reply being filed to the notice, if authority finds that spot survey/explanation report is not satisfactory, it may order for a fresh spot report to be prepared in presence of the party aggrieved. (v) In the event, objection includes a plea of statutory protection/ benefit under Section 67-A, the authority should invite the objection from the Gaon Sabha, and will decide the same alongwith the matter under Section 67, without requiring aggrieved party to move separate application under Section 67-A (vi) If the report is admitted on record, may be in case no objection is filed, the authority must ensure presence of the person preparing the report before it, to prove the report by his statement, with a right to aggrieved party to cross question him. (vii) The authority must endeavour to decide the case within time framed provided under the relevant Act and the Rules and should desist from granting adjournment to the parties in a routine manner. (vii) The authority must endeavour to decide the case within time framed provided under the relevant Act and the Rules and should desist from granting adjournment to the parties in a routine manner. (viii) In case of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, preferred/ filed within the time prescribed alongwith interim relief application, the interim relief application as far as possible should be decided within two weeks' time with prior notice to other side and where plea of settlement under Section 67-A has been taken before Assistant Collector-1st Class, and damages to the tune of 25 % at-least of the total damages are paid and an affidavit of undertaking is filed for not raising any further construction upon the land in question, the authorities including civil administration should avoid taking any coercive measure pursuant to the order appealed against until the disposal of interim relief application. The Appellate authority may also consider granting interim relief on the very first day of filing of appeal with stay application if above conditions are fulfilled by the appellant. (ix) The appellate authority should as far as possible decide the appeal within a period of two months of its presentation. " 11. In light of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem appropriate to keep the matter pending rather the Court is of the opinion that since no fruitful purpose shall be served in calling for a counter as the basic guidelines as noticed above have not been followed and in such circumstances merely calling for the counter will delay the demarcation proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are also pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, the details of which have been brought on record alongwith the supplementary-affidavit and since there is no proper compliance in the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, hence it will be in the ends of justice that the impugned orders dated 18.01.2024 and 05.04.2024 are quashed and set aside. The proceedings under under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 shall stands restored to its original number before the respondent no.3, who shall after complying with the necessary guidelines as indicated by this Court in Rishipal Singh (supra) are followed. The proceedings under under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 shall stands restored to its original number before the respondent no.3, who shall after complying with the necessary guidelines as indicated by this Court in Rishipal Singh (supra) are followed. A fresh inspection shall be done in presence of the parties after due notice and following the guidelines, the proceedings shall be decided afresh after affording full opportunity of hearing the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments. 12. The proceedings for demarcation pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned shall also stands expedited and the same shall also be decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is placed before the said court. 13. The parties shall appear before the Tehsildar on 29th of July, 2024 and he shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, as noticed above, shall decide the matter afresh within a period of three months. It is also stated that the petitioner shall co-operate and shall not seek adjournments except in exceptional circumstances both in the court of the Tehsildar as well as before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned so that the proceedings can be decided expeditiously. 14. Subject to the aforesaid, it is made clear that this Court has not examined the contentions of the petitioner regarding his demarcation proceedings on merits. 15. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Costs are made easy.