JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Shailendra Singh, Ajay Tripathi, Surya Prakash Pandey, M.J. Akhtar, Rajesh Kumar, Dhirendra Prasad, Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Rahul Kumar Tyagi, Harish Chandra Dubey, Sheikh Moazzam Inam, Adarsh Tripathi, Sri S.K. Chaubey, Sri V.K. Upadhyay, Sri K.N. Singh, Kharag Singh, Abhay Raj Yadav, Vidya Kant Tripathi, Dwijendra Prasad, Pravesh Kumar, Shailendra Yadav, Rahul Kumar Tyagi, Pramod Kumar Pandey, Birendra Pratap Yadav, Vinod Kumar Yadav, Naveen Kumar, K.K. Yadav and H.C. Yadav, learned Advocates appearing for the respective petitioners and Sri Sudhir Bharti, Sunil Kumar Singh, Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Achal Singh, Deepak Gaur, Pradeep Singh, Sher Bahadur Singh, Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for their respective Gaon/ Gram Sabhas and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, assisted by Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Rahul Malviya, Sri Anand Bhaskar Srivastava, Sri Ashok Kumar Khushwaha, Sri S.K. Pandey, P.K. Kaushik, Sri Amit Singh, Sri Dhananjay Singh, Sri Chandrasekhar Vaisya, Sri Amit Dubey, Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

1. All these petitions connected together raise common question of law and hence have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The common question of law that arises for consideration relates to the procedure to be adopted by the revenue authorities in exercise of their power under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Revenue Code") and Section 26 thereof.

3. The grievances raised by petitioners in their respective writ petitions more or less relate to the manner and method in which spot inspection is conducted, report prepared and at times without giving opportunity to the aggrieved party to contest the report, the orders are passed. There are cases where straight away, the Assistant Collector 1st Class/ Tehsildar concerned has proceeded to pass final order under Section 67 of the Revenue Code.

4. Yet another legal point that has been argued by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, is relating to settlement of old construction sites with occupier of the building under Section 67-A of the Revenue Code. Fact position in cases though may very but the challenge to orders impugned raise common legal issues as have been referred to hereinabove.

5. I am taking writ petition no. 6658 of 2022 to be the leading writ petition. The original records of the proceedings instituted under Section 67 of the Revenue Code against the petitioner in the leading petition have also been placed before the Court by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, in order to appreciate the procedure adopted in the instant case.

6. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a case under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code has been instituted against the petitioner on the basis of some report submitted by the local area Lekhpal on RC form-19, in which petitioner has been held to be illegally occupying 21 square meters of land of plot no. 285, a miljumla number, situated in Village Ladawali, Tehsil Kanth, District Moradabad, by building a house upon the same whereas the land belonged to Gaon Sabha and so a public land. The petitioner in response to the notice, issued on RC Form 20, submitted his objection on 25th July, 2018 disputing the claim of the Gram Panchayat qua the land in question and the plea taken was that the land stood settled with petitioner some 60 years ago. The houses of the petitioner and his brothers Balram Singh and Latoor Singh were built upon the land some 60 years ago falling in plot no. 285, in Khata No. 411 of the concerned revenue village. The petitioner also claimed to have converted the old mud house into a linter based cemented house and he even had instituted a suit in civil court seeking permanent prohibitory injunction being O.S. No. 462 of 2018, which was pending.

7. It transpires from the record that the