JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.K. Mani for the Gaon Sabha, the third respondent as also learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 drawn against the petitioner for his eviction from plot no.158M situated in village Pittanhedi Jiya, Tehsil Nagina, District Bijnor.

3. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that in the notice issued to him in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P.Revenue Code, 2006, there was no mention of any pond; only encroachment over plot no.158 was alleged.

4. The contention that the notices did not mention that plot no.158 is pond is of no consequence. The plot no and the area over which, the petitioner had encroached was clearly mentioned in the notice.

5. The revenue entry of the plot in question, in any case, is not that of a pond. It is merely an entry under class 6(1) of land covered by water. Therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that there is no mention of a pond in the notice does not help the petitioner.

6. On the proceedings being drawn against him, the petitioner appeared and filed his objection alleging therein that the area of plot no.158 shown in the revenue map is larger than its actual area and that the House of the petitioner has been in existence on plot no.158 for more than 25 years and he has a valid electricity connection since 1979, the notice of the proceedings had been issued to him on account of the village politics. It was also the case of the petitioner that no proper survey or demarcation had been carried out.

7. The Tehsildar vide order dated 17.06.2019 ordered eviction of the petitioner because, it was admitted by him that he was in possession over 237 sq. meters of plot no.158 and it was also admitted by him that plot no.158 was not recorded in the revenue map.

8. The Tehsildar found that the area of plot no.158 was 0.025 hectare while in the revenue map, its area was shown 0.120 hectares. It was however found that the house of the petitioner was situated over the land recorded under class 6(1) of the Khatauni, wherein no rights could accrue in favour of anyone being land of public utility. Accordingly, eviction of the petitioner was ordered, imposing damages of Rs.1,71,825/-

9. The consequential appeal has been dismissed on 01.10.2019.

10. When the petitioner initially came up before this Court and since the case of the petitioner that no proper demarcation had been carried out, a fresh survey report was called for by this Court, which has been filed by learned Standing Counsel along with a compliance affidavit dated 06.01.2020.

11. Detailed objection as also a supplementary objection were filed by the petitioner to the survey report. In the supplementary objection, it has been stated that only an area 0.025 hectare or 25 sq. meter is a pond on the spot while in the map, this area is to be shown almost 2500 sq. meters. However, petitioner's house is in existence for more than 36 years with a valid electricity connection. This by itself establishes that the land in question is not a pond (No khatauni is being filed on record). Besides, several people have testified that the land over which, the house of the petitioner exists is not pond belonging to the Gaon Sabha.

12. It has submitted that in the survey report furnished in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, there is no mention regarding existence of any revenue map. It has also been submitted that the measurement from point no.H to G has not been given in it and therefore, the entire calculations are wrong.

13. Since, the petitioner in the proceedings before the Tehsildar admitted that he has in possession of plot no.158 and his name is not recorded over the said plot, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It cannot be accepted also because he has not brought on record the khatauni, which document would have been conclu