JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh, Senior Advocate for the petitioners in these writ petitions and Shri Tariq Maqbool Khan for the Gaon Sabha.

2. These writ petitions arise out of proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, for eviction of the petitioners from separate areas of plot no. 188 situated in village Pachrukhiya, Tehsil Padrauna, District Kushinagar, which is recorded in the revenue records as 'Banjar'. Separate orders have been passed for eviction of the petitioners and on their consequential appeals, dismissing them. However, since the submissions made are common, the petitions are being decided by a common order.

3. It would be relevant to note that proceedings for eviction of the petitioners appear to have been instituted, consequent to directions issued by the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation.

4. In all the petitions, the contention of learned counsel is that petitioners are agricultural labourers and since they are occupants of land which is not reserved for a public purpose and is not governed by the provisions of Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, they were entitled to the benefit of Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Therefore, the orders of their eviction should not have been passed because they had filed applications seeking this benefit, which proceedings are still pending. It is also contended that property demanded that the proceedings under Section 67A should have been consolidated and heard together with the eviction proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, which was not done. The orders impugned are, therefore, vitiated and liable to be set-aside.

5. In so far as the submission that the proceedings for eviction under Section 67 should have been heard and decided along with the proceedings under Section 67A filed by the petitioners, learned counsel, on a pointed query by the Court, admits that no application for consolidation of the afore-noted two cases were ever filed by any of the petitioners.

6. In these four petitions, only two of the petitioners, namely Smt. Nagina in Writ Petition No. 36276 of 2019 and Smt. Sunita, in Writ Petition No. 36362 of 2019, claim to belong to the backward class. The other two do not claim to belong either to the scheduled caste or the backward class.

7. The issue in the writ petition is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which provides that in case a house exists over land referred to in Section 63 of the Code, having been built prior to November 29, 2012, the housing site can be settled with its owner on such terms and conditions as may be specified.

8. The benefit of Section 67 is liable to be granted as regards land referred to in Section 63 of the Code. Section 63 speaks of land, which may be allotted for abadi site and empowers the Sub Divisional Officer, on his own motion or on the resolution of the Land Management Committee, to earmark land for abadi site. The second requirement for a person to be entitled to the benefit of Section 67A is that he should be a person referred to in sub-section 1 of Section 64.

9. Section 64 sub-section 1 talks of the orders of preference to be observed while making allotment of land referred to in Section 63, namely land which has been earmarked for abadi sites.

10. Section 64 of the Code reads as follows.

"64. Allotment of abadi sites.-(1) The following order of preference shall be observed in making allotment of land referred to Section 63 :-

(a) an agricultural labourer or a village artisan residing in the [Gram Panchayat] and belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or other Backward Classes or a person of general category living below poverty line as determined by the State Government.

(b) any other agricultural labourer or a village artisan residing in the [Gram Panchayat].

(c) any other person residing in the [Gram Panchayat] and belonging to