JUDGMENT : (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction, in the array of the parties as well as in the prayer clause of the writ petition during the course of the day. 2. Heard Sri Ratan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hari Om Singh, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha. 3. Brief facts of the case are that order dated 17.3.2023 under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was passed against the petitioner for ejectment in respect to plot no.1162, area 0.389 hect., treating the petitioner to be in possession over the plot in question as well as imposition of damages against the petitioner. Against the order dated 17.3.2023, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 67(5) on 17.6.2023 alongwith prayer for condonation of delay before the Collecter Bhadohi, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.6.2024. Restoration application dated 19.7.2024 filed by petitioner against the order dated 21.6.2024 has not been allowed rather entire appeal has dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 12.8.2024. Hence, the instant writ petition for the following relief:- "to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 21.6.2024 passed by the A.D.M. (Judicial), Bhadohi and order dated 17.3.2023, passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Gyanpur, District Bhadohi and further issue and ad interim mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over arazi no.1162, area 0.389 hect., situated in the village Baragaon, Tehsil Gyanpur, District Bhadohi during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order of dismissal of the appeal in default, restoration application was filed by the petitioner within limitation on 19.7.2024 but the Collector has passed the order, dismissing the appeal as time-barred appeal rather passing an order on the restoration application in accordance with law. He submitted that even on merit, the petitioner has taken objection that petitioner is not in possession over plot no.1162 rather he is in possession of his bhumidhari plot no. 1173 as well as abadi plot no.1171 & 1172 but without making proper survey / demarcation of the plot in question, an order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the petitioner in respect to plot in question. 1173 as well as abadi plot no.1171 & 1172 but without making proper survey / demarcation of the plot in question, an order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the petitioner in respect to plot in question. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2023 (1) ADJ 154 , Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, in order to demonstrate that no order for ejectment and damages can be passed, without making proper survey/demarcation. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel and the counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that plot no.1162 is recorded as jungal in the revenue records, as such, there is no illegality in the order of the Tehsildar. They further submitted that the appeal has also been dismissed in accordance with law, as such, no interference is required in the matter. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that an order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the petitioner in respect to plot no.1162 and the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 7. So far as the proceedings under Sections 67 (2), 67(5) & 67 A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are concerned, this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh (supra) has considered the scope of Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 & laid down the principle for the disposal of the proceeding under Section-67 of U.P Revenue Code, 2006. Paragraph No. 74 of the judgment rendered in Rishipal Singh (Supra) is relevant for consideration which is 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. Paragraph No. 74 of the judgment rendered in Rishipal Singh (Supra) is relevant for consideration which is 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 sub-rule 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 67A. (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. (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. (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. 8. So far as the dismissal of the appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on the ground of limitation is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 , Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another vs. Mst. Kantiji & Others has held that in place of rejecting the matter on technical grounds, the matter should be decided on merits. Paragraph No.3 of the judgment rendered in Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag (supra) is as follows: "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. Paragraph No.3 of the judgment rendered in Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag (supra) is as follows: "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:- "Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the 'State' which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step motherly treatment when the 'State' is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note making, file pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The Courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time barred, is therefore. set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted to the High Court. The High Court will now dispose of the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides." 9. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time barred, is therefore. set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted to the High Court. The High Court will now dispose of the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides." 9. In the instant matter, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.6.2024 and when the restoration application was filed, the Collector has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation without passing proper order on the restoration application in accordance with law which is arbitrary exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the appellate Court/Collector under Section-67 (5) of U.P Revenue Code, 2006. 10. So far as the order dated 17.3.2023 passed by respondent No.3/ Tehsildar under Section-67 (2) of U.P Revenue Code, 2006 is concerned the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law as the tehsildar has not afforded proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner nor conducted proper survey/demarcation of the plot in question. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as ratio of law laid down in Rishipal Singh (supra) and Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag (Supra), the impugned judgments dated 12.8.2024 & 21.6.2024, passed by respondent no.2/ Collector Bhadohi and 17.3.2023, passed by the respondent No. 3/ Tehsildar are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 12. The Writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3/Tehsildar, Tehsil Ghyanpur, Bhadohi to register the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on its original number and decide the same on merit afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, taking into account the ratio of law laid down in the case of Rishipal Singh (supra), expeditiously preferably within period of 3 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.