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 file