JUDGMENT

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

Heard Shri Amish Kumar Srivastava along with Ms. Sanju Lata, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. The petitioner has made two prayers in the writ petition. The first prayer is for quashing of the order dated 04.01.2023, whereby the Tehsildar concerned has directed eviction of the petitioner in the proceedings under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and also imposed penalty to the extent of Rs. 1,36,600/-. The second prayer is for deciding the restoration application filed by the petitioner on 16.01.2023 seeking recall of the order dated 04.01.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tehsildar, Nakud, Saharanpur issued a notice dated 26.12.2022 in purported exercise of powers under section 67 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 calling upon the petitioner to remove his alleged unauthorised possession within a period of two days fixing 28.12.2022 at 10.00 a.m. for compliance of notice and to show cause. The notice states that in case objections are not filed against the show cause notice within the aforesaid date and time, the case shall be decided ex-parte.

4. The relevant portion of notice dated 26.12.2022 reads as under:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very next week, the impugned order dated 04.01.2023 has been passed observing that despite service of notice, the petitioner has not made any opposition hence the case proceeded day by day. It is the case of the petitioner that the order dated 04.01.2023 being ex-parte and in violation of the principles of Natural Justice, he immediately preferred a recall application dated 16.01.2023 stating that immediately after having come to know about the order dated 04.01.2023, restoration/recall application is being moved, which should be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the provisions of section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, sub-sections (2) and (3), whereof read as follows:

67. Power to prevent damages, misappropriation and wrongful occupation of Gram Panchayat property. -

(2) Where from the information received under sub-section (1) or otherwise, the Assistant Collector is satisfied that any property referred to in sub-section (1) has been damaged or misappropriated, or any person is in occupation of any land referred to in that sub-section in contravention of the provisions of this Code, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation not exceeding the amount specified in the notice be not recovered from him and why he should not be evicted from such land.

(3) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under sub-section (2) fails to show cause within the time specified in the notice or within such extended time as the Assistant Collector may allow in this behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be insufficient, the Assistant Collector may direct that such person shall be evicted from the land, and may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary, and may direct that the amount of compensation for damage or misappropriation of the property or for wrongful occupation as the case may be, be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue."

7. He has also placed reliance upon Rule 67 of the Rules framed under the Act in 2016, which reads as f