JUDGMENT

Rajnish Kumar, J.

Heard Shri Saryu Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Govind Kumar Chaurasiya, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the Tehsildar- Bhiti, District- Ambedkar Nagar by means of which the claim of the petitioner for settlement under Section 67 -A(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on a part of Gata No.1267-Kha, Min. 0.008 hec. and Gata No.1268-Ga, Min. 0.011 hec. has been rejected and the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the respondent no.2/ Collector/District Magistrate, District- Ambedkar Nagar on appeal of the petitioner under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a landless labour and in possession of the Gata No.1267-Kha, Min. 0.008 hec. and Gata No.1268-Ga, Min. 0.011 hec. and his toilet and boundary wall is erected on the said land since last 25 years. Initially it was in possession of his father and after he left the place it is in possession of the petitioner and he is living separately, therefore the application filed by the petitioner has wrongly and illegally been rejected and the appeal dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the claim of the petitioner has been considered and it has been found that the father of the petitioner is in Government service, who is getting minimum Rs.50,000/- per month as salary and his age would have been of about 6 years, 25 years back i.e. the date from which he is claiming his possession on the land in dispute, therefore he could not have entered into possession at that time, thus the claim has rightly been rejected and he has been directed to be evicted from the land in question.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records.

6. On a notice issued to the petitioner under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 for eviction and damages, the petitioner claimed the settlement of Gata No.1267-Kha, Min. 0.008 hec. and Gata No.1268-Ga, Min. 0.011 hec. in his favour under Section 67 -A(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 on the ground that he is eligible under the said provision for settlement of the land in question with him.

7. The petitioner claims to have in possession of the land in dispute for the last 25 years. The age of the petitioner is 32 years as disclosed in this petition, therefore he must have been about 7 years, 25 years back and as per findings recorded by the courts below also he would have been 6 years of age on the date from which he is claiming possession on the land in dispute. On a query being put from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner could have entered in possession of the land in dispute at the age of 6 years, he submits that his father was in possession who has left the place and now working at Ahmedabad. Therefore, now the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute, whereas no such claim has been set up by the petitioner. The only claim of the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner has been deleted from the Pariwar Register of his father and his name along with his family is recorded separately in a Pariwar Register. However, he has failed to disclose as to when his name has been separately recorded. Even otherwise, merely because the petitioner has got his name struck down from the family of his father, can not make the petitioner eligible under Section 67 -A of the UP. Revenue Code- 2006. From the copies of the Pari