Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

KALPNATHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court held that non‑appearance and failure to pursue available remedies justify dismissal of the petition and no relief is granted.

Summary

Kalpnath filed a writ petition challenging orders passed under Sections 67 and 67(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, in two revenue cases. He alleged that the authorities ignored material evidence that would have shown he was not an encroacher of the Navin Parti land. The respondents contended that Kalpnath failed to appear after being served notice and also did not argue his appeal under Section 67(5). The High Court observed that a specific finding was recorded that the petitioner did not appear, and that he could have filed a recall under Section 209(h) but chose not to. Consequently, the Court held that the authorities were justified in dismissing the appeal and that the petition could not be kept pending indefinitely. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the orders passed under Sections 67 and 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are sustainable despite the petitioner's non‑appearance.
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief when he failed to participate in the proceedings and did not file a recall application under Section 209(h).

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • U.P. Revenue Code
  • Section 67
  • Section 67(5)
  • Section 209(h)
  • non‑appearance
  • appeal dismissal
  • writ petition
  • procedural default

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 38492 of 2026

Kalpnath
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Dinesh Kumar Maurya, Kamala
                                  Shanker Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.

Court No. - 4
                 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by orders passed under Sections 67 and
67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ('the Code') respectively in Cases No.
11043 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. T202314360411043 (Report
Lekhpal Vs. Kalpnath) and Case No. 2930 of 2024 (Computerized Case
No. D202414360002930) (Kalpnath Vs. State).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders have been
passed ignoring the material evidence on record, which, if perused,
indicate that the petitioner would not have been held as an encroacher
over the navin parti land and, therefore, the orders impugned are
unsustainable.

3. Shri Indramani Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Amit
Gupta, holding brief of Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel
for the Gaon Sabha submit that the petitioner did not participate in the
proceedings under Section 67 of the Code despite service of notice and
even in the appeal, he did not appear to argue the matter and, therefore,
the authorities were justified in passing the orders impugned.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that specific finding
has been recorded against the petitioner in the order dated 27.01.2024, i.e.
despite service of notice he did not appear in the proceedings and,
therefore, after recording the statement of Lekhpal and based upon the
record position, the order was passed.
                                                                                          WRIC No. 38492 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    5. Although the petitioner could have filed a recall application under
                                    Section 209(h) of the Code, he chose to file an appeal under Section 67(5)
                                    of the Code and even in the appeal, neither he nor his counsel appeared to
                                    argue the matter. Under such circumstances, the appellate authority again
                                    based upon the record and hearing the respondent side, dismissed the
                                    appeal on merits.

                                    6. This Court is of the considered opinion that if the parties avoid
                                    participation in the proceedings for any reason whatsoever, the authorities
                                    cannot keep the matter pending before them indefinitely and, therefore,
                                    the Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.

                                    7. The petition stands dismissed.



                                                                                       (Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    AKShukla/-




Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.