Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1326 (ALL)

Anupam Kumar Mishra v. State of U. P.

2025-11-15

ALOK MATHUR

body2025
JUDGMENT : ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4. 2. In the light of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondent, is dispensed with. 3. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.10.2025 issued by Area Lekhpal, Tehsil Colonelganj, District Gonda, wherein he has directed all the persons who have illegally occupied the land situated at Gata No. 360/0.0200 hectares (Nayee Parti) as well as Gata No. 361/0.0770 hectares, which is recorded as Naveen Parti and Banjar Bhumi, which is also being used by the villagers for their animals required for public purposes and all the illegal occupants have been directed to remove their encroachment within 05 days, failing which they would be evicted by use of force, in accordance with law. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he admits his occupation on Gata No. 360 for more than 50 years. No Revenue Record or any document has been filed indicating on what basis the petitioner is occupying the said land. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in light of the provision of Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, the said occupation can be settled in favour of the petitioner but it seems that no application has been submitted by the petitioner to claim his rights under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code and no satisfaction explanation has forth come as to why the petitioner has not moved the application before the appropriate Authority claiming his rights under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code. 6. On the other hand on perusal of the notice indicates that the Area Lekhpal has directed all the illegal occupants to vacate the said premises themselves, failing which action shall be taken in accordance with law. Once it is clear that the petitioner is not a recorded tenure holder of the said land, while on the other hand the land is recorded as Gaon Sabha, then certainly the Revenue Authorities, who are under the mandate to protect the Gaon Sabha land have to take such an action to remove the illegal encroachers. Once it is clear that the petitioner is not a recorded tenure holder of the said land, while on the other hand the land is recorded as Gaon Sabha, then certainly the Revenue Authorities, who are under the mandate to protect the Gaon Sabha land have to take such an action to remove the illegal encroachers. Notice itself indicates that the authority would proceed in consonance of law and consequently in light of the aforesaid notice, I do not find anything illegal and arbitrary which may require interference. 7. Considering the fact that the petitioner could not justify his occupation on the said land which is recorded as Gaon Sabha land and secondly action, if any, is to be taken in accordance with law. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground for interference. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 8. It is further made clear that the Revenue Authority shall act against all the persons, howsoever, in case the encroachment is found on the disputed land.