MAJOR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 37217 of 2026

Major Singh
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)             :    Piyush Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)             :    C.S.C., Sher Bahadur Singh

Court No. - 37
                 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.



1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Collector,
Pilibhit as respondent no.4 to the writ petition during the course of
the day.

2. Heard Mr. Piyush Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Anshul Nigam, learned standing counsel for the
state-respondents and Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel
for the respondent-gaon sabha.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

     "1. Issue a writ, order or direction to set aside the impugned
     order dated 8.5.2026 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition)
     passed by respondent no.2/Assistant Collector/Tehsildar,
     Bisalpur, District Pilibhit in Case No.2077/2025 (Computerized
     Case No.T202512560202077), under Section 209(Ja) of the U.P.
     Revenue Code, 2006.

     2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
     commanding           the       respondent         no.2/Assistant
     Collector/Tehsildar, Bisalpur, District Pilibhit to receive the
     petitioner's restoration application and not to reject/refuse to
     entertain the same merely on account of the impugned order
     dated 8.5.2026."
                                                    WRIC No. 37217 of 2026
                             2


4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier
proceeding under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was
initiated against the petitioner which was dropped by the Tehsildar,
recording finding that petitioner has no other accommodation in the
village in question, as such, the order for eviction will cause
irreparable injury to the petitioner. He further submitted that the plot
in question is recorded as Usar. He also               submitted that
subsequent proceeding has been again initiated under Section 67
of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and order for eviction and
damages has been passed in ex parte manner on 27.9.2024,
accordingly, restoration application has been filed and the same
has been rejected in arbitrary manner on 8.5.2026. He also
submitted that the alternative remedy will not be bar for the
petitioner to challenge the order of Tehsildar before this Court as
impugned order has been passed in illegal manner, as such, the
order passed by the Tehsildar should be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the State and
the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that the writ
petition against the order of Tehsildar, cannot be entertained as the
remedy of appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 is available to the petitioner.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that an order for eviction and
damages has been passed by the Tehsildar in the proceeding
under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the
restoration application filed on behalf of the petitioner has also
been rejected.

8. It is material to mention that an appeal under Section 67(5) of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is provided against the order of the
Tehsildar passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006.
                                                                                         WRIC No. 37217 of 2026
                                                                  3


                                    9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
                                    without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the
                                    instant writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to
                                    file an appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
                                    along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
                                    before respondent no.4/Collector, Pilibhit within a period of 3
                                    weeks from today. It is further directed that respondent
                                    No.4/Collector,    Pilibhit   shall     consider    and      decide     the
                                    aforementioned      appeal    on      merit,   considering    the     delay
                                    condonation matter 1st, expeditiously, after affording opportunity of
                                    hearing to the parties, in accordance with law.



                                                                                     (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    C.Prakash




Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad