JUDGMENT :

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.

2. The instant writ petition arises out of an application under section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by the petitioner and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.4.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 22.6.2019, whereby the consequential revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 30.4.2019.

3. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot No. 554 area 0.134 hectares situated in village Ataharpar, Pargana and Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur, recorded as banjar in the revenue records.

4. The petitioner filed an application under section 67-A alleging himself to be an eligible person under section 64(1) of the Code and that the plot had not been reserved for any public purpose. The house of the petitioner has been in existence over the said plot from before November 29, 2012. It was prayed the said land therefore, be recorded as abadi.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 10.4.2019 allowed the application and directed that an area of 0.020 hectares of the aforesaid plot be recorded as abadi.

6. Subsequently this order was modified on 20.4.2019 stating therein that the order dated 10.4.2019 contained a typographical error only an area of 0.012 hectares was liable to be recorded as abadi.

7. Against the aforesaid two orders, a restoration application was filed by the respondent No. 5 alleging therein that the petitioner was not an eligible person. He had unauthorizedly raised construction over more than half of plot No. 554 and in the process blocked a public pathway. The orders were therefore liable to be set-aside and the land was liable to be recorded as banjar as it was, prior to orders dated 10.4.2019 and 20.4.2019 having been passed.

8. The Sub-Divisional Officer finding the petitioner to be an ineligible person, set aside the orders dated 10.4.2019/20.4.2019 vide order dated 30.4.2019.

9. The petitioner therefore, filed a revision before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, which has been rejected on 22.6.2019 on the ground that the petitioner is possessed of sufficient land, even, prior to the order dated 10.4.2019. He was already possessed of a house and that the orders dated 10.4.2019 and 20.4.2019 had been passed, ex-parte. Therefore, the order impugned in the revision was found to be perfectly justified. The revision was accordingly, dismissed. Hence this writ petition.

10. The controversy in the petition primarily is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, since he belongs to the backward class and claims to be in unauthorized occupation of plot No. 554 area 0.012 hectares, which is recorded in the revenue records as banjar.

11. This aspect has been elaborately dealt with in the judgment dated 9.1.2020 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, the leading case whereof was Writ - C No. 36353 of 2019, Sri Raju v. State of U.P. & 3 others, wherein it has been held as follows:

"The issue in the writ petition is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of section 67-A 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.

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 67-A is that he should be a person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 64.

Section 64, sub-section (1) talks of the orders of pr