JUDGMENT :

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner in both these writ petitions, which 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. 152-Sa area 0.3790 hectares, which is recorded in the revenue records as pasture land.

2. In both these writ petitions, orders of the Tehsildar ordering eviction of the petitioners and that of the Collector dismissing the consequential appeals are under challenge. The orders in both the cases are dated 29.10.2018 and 16.9.2019, respectively, though in the petitions they are separate orders.

3. Assailing the impugned orders, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is identical in both the writ petitions.

4. The first contention is that the order passed by the Tehsildar was ex-parte.

5. The second contention raised is that proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 should not have been proceeded with as a title suit was pending before the Civil Court, especially because the proceedings under section 67 of the Code, are summary proceedings and that the impugned orders would necessarily be subject to the orders passed by the Civil Court in the title proceedings.

6. The last contention raised is that the petitioners having constructed their houses over land, which was recorded as banjar, which subsequently and without any authority came to be recorded as pasture land, the petitioners were not liable to be evicted as they were entitled to the benefit of section 123 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as also the parallel provision, namely section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

7. Counsel appearing for the respondent-Gaon Sabha as also learned Standing Counsel have supported the impugned orders.

8. The contention that the order passed by the Tehsildar was ex-parte does not impress this Court inasmuch as the appeal filed by the petitioners has been rejected after hearing them. The initial defect if any in the order of the Tehsildar even if it was ex-parte, stood pure at the appellate stage where the petitioners have been duly heard.

9. Insofar the submission that a title suit is pending before the Civil Court and, therefore, the proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 should not have been proceeded with is without substance, the plot in question is land within the meaning of the term used in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as also under the now repealed provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. No declaration of title regarding such 'land' can be granted by the Civil Court and it is the Revenue Code alone which has jurisdiction in the matter.

10. Besides, eviction of the unauthorized occupants from Gaon Sabha property can be ordered only in provisions under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 after the repeal of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Civil Court again has no jurisdiction in this regard.

11. Under the circumstances, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. It was also be relevant to realise that since the revenue Court have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders in proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and since the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in this regard, the impugned orders cannot, by any stretch imagination, be held to the orders subject to any order by the Civil Court in the suit filed by the petitioners.

12. The contention that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of section 123 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or of section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 also cannot be accepted. The benefit is liable to be granted only if a house is constructed over land, which has been reserved for abadi.

13. Admittedly, in the case at hand the land in question is recorded as pasture land, which is land of public utility governed earlier by the provisions of the section 132 of the U.P. Zamin