JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia, J.

Today when the matter is taken up, Sri S.K. Pandey Advocate alongwith Sri S.N. Pandey, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Reetesh Kumar Uttam alongwith impleadment application for him impleadment as respondent No. 5 in the petition.

The impleadment application is supported by an affidavit. Cause shown is sufficient.

The impleadment application is allowed.

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to implead Reetesh Kumar Uttam as respondent No. 5 in the petition during the course of the day.

Order on the Petition :

2. Heard Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State, Sri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4-Gaon Sabha and Sri S.K. Pandey Advocate alongwith Sri S.N. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 5

3. By the impugned order dated 22.1.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3-Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector 1st Class, Tehsil-Narwal, District-Kanpur Nagar rendered in proceedings registered as Suit No. 03062 of 2019, Computerized Suit No. T201903410403062 (State of U.P. v. Raje Lal) under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), the petitioner was found to be illegal encroachment over the disputed parcels of land. The learned appellate Court/Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Kanpur Nagar by the impugned order dated 20.7.2021 agreed with the findings of the learned trial Court/Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector 1st Class, Tehsil-Narwal, District-Kanpur Nagar, and affirmed its judgment dated 22.1.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ancestors of the petitioner were allotted a residential patta over the disputed parcels of land. The predecessors in interest of the petitioner had erected a residential house on the disputed parcels of land almost 55 years ago. This fact was confirmed in the report submitted by the Lekhpal which is appended as annexure 4 to the writ petition. The learned Courts below erred in law and entered perverse findings by failing to consider the aforesaid defence as well as corroborative evidence in that regard. The petitioner is entitled to the protection of Section 67(A) of the Code.

5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 22.1.2021 and the order dated 20.7.2021 corroborates the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. The aforesaid facts could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State, Sri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4-Gaon Sabha and Sri S.K. Pandey Advocate alongwith Sri S.N. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

7. The petitioner had clearly invoked the protection of 67(A) of the Code on the footing that his residential house was erected 55 years ago and that a residential patta was granted to his predecessors. The learned Courts below neglected to consider the aforesaid facts and defences raised by the petitioner. This reflects non application of mind.

8. Adverting to the eligibility of the petitioner for protection under Section 67(A) of the Code and the rights purportedly accruing to him thereunder, the appellate Court held that it was open to the petitioner to take out proceedings under Section 67(A) of the Code for grant of appropriate relief as claimed by him. After noticing the aforesaid facts, the appellate Court agreed with the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The trial Court did not return any finding on this issue.

9. Section 67 as well as Section 67(A) of the Code reflect the composite intent of legislature. The legislature by enacting the aforesaid provision has recognized the vulnerability of the State land to illegal encroachment and the need for urgent corrective measures. Simultaneously the legislature has also acknowledged the reality of a large number of persons who have erected dwelling units on lands which are not reserved for any public purpo