The court highlighted the necessity for due process in land disputes, affirming that no demolition should occur pending resolution of restoration applications under the U.P. Revenue Code.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent No.4/Land Management Committee.

2. The instant petition has been filed for following relief:

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the demolition notice dated 07.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.5 /Tehsildar, Tehsil-Padrauna, District-Kushinagar (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition).

(ii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No.5 i.e. Tehsildar Padrauna,District-Kushinagar to decide the restoration application dated 13.09.2021 of the petitioner for recalling the ex-parte order dated 27.08.2021 passed by respondent no.5 in computerized Case No.T202105440100214 (Gaon Sabha v. Indal) under Section 67 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 may be decided immediately or stipulated period.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to not being demolish the dwelling house of the petitioner situated in village-Narchochwa, Tappa-Basichirgora, Pargana-Sidhua Jobna, Tehsil-Padrauna, District-Kushinagar alleged plot No.357 recorded as a Khalihan during the pendency of restoration application of the petitioner."

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot No. 357 of khata No.1461 is recorded as Khalihan in the revenue record and plot No.359 of khata No.1067 is bhumidhari plot of the petitioner. He further submitted that proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated in respect to the Khalihan land and order for ejectment and damages dated 27.08.2021 has been passed by respondent No.5/ Tehsildar, Padrauna, District- Kushinagar in ex-parte manner against the petitioner. He next submitted that against the order of Tehsildar dated 27.08.2021, a restoration application was filed on 13.09.2021. He further submitted that since no order has been passed on the petitioner's restoration application as such authorities started interference with the possession of the petitioner, accordingly, appeal under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 has been filed but appellate court has dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of the pendency of restoration application filed against the order of Tehislder dated 27.08.2021. He further submitted that even on merit the order passed by the Tehsildar is not in accordance with law as the petitioner is bhumidhar of adjoining plot No.359 but no survey/ demarcation has been made by the authorities as held by this Court in case reported in 2023 (1) ADJ 154 Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. and Others. He further submitted that even the proceeding for exchange under Section 101 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the Court concerned, as such the order of demolition and damages will cause irreparable injury to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr.Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha submitted that considering the entry of the plot in dispute, the order for ejectment and damages has been passed in accordance with law. He further submitted that petitioner has already filed restorati