JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri Alok Kr. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State as also Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the opposite party No.4-Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil- Ikauna, District-Shrawasti, in the proceedings carried out against the petitioner under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") which was registered as Case No.4255 of 2022, Computerized Case No.T202208620204255.

3. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the opposite party No.2-District Magistrate, District- Shrawasti, in the Appeal No.568 of 2022, Computerized Case No.D202208620000568 filed under Section 67 (5) of the Code of 2006 and also the order dated 03.04.2023, whereby the application for restoration preferred by the petitioner for restoring the appeal decided vide order dated 19.01.2023, was rejected.

4. By the order dated 29.11.2022, the opposite party No.4 directed the revenue official to evict the petitioner from Gata No.780/0.065 Hect. (recorded as Naveen Parti) alleging that the petitioner is encroacher of 0.035 Hect. land of Gata No.780.

5. A challenge has been made to the impugned order(s) on the ground that the procedure, which ought to have been followed by the opposite party No.4 at the time of passing of final order in the proceedings instituted under Section 67 (1) of the Code of 2006, was not followed. In continuation, it is stated that the procedure, which should be followed, has been indicated by this Court in the judgment dated 02.12.2022 passed in the bunch of petitions, leading of which, is Writ C No.6658 of 2022 (Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. & 3 Others) reported in 2022 SCC Online All 829. A reference has been made to para 74 of the report of Rishipal Singh (Supra), which reads as under:-

"74. Thus, in my view, following guidelines be adopted as procedure to be applied to proceedings under Sections 67,67A and 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code. It is all aimed at ensuring transparency in the procedure, judiciousness in approach by the authorities and to thwart every complaint made with ulterior and oblique motive to dislodge a long settled possession and causing of unnecessary harassment to an innocent villager:

(i) In case of complaint made on RC From 19, the official making it shall ensure that proper survey is done in the light of observations made in this judgment; the land, occupation of which has stood identified to be unauthorized is in exact measurement and so also shown in the survey map prepared on scale, as per the Land Revenue Survey Regulations, 1978; the exact assessment of damages on the basis of circle rate with details of calculation made on that basis.

(ii) In a case of suo motu action, before issuing RC Form 20, the authority will ensure that proper report upon RC Form 19 is submitted as per para (i) above on parameters of subrule 1 Rule 67.

(iii) RC Form 20 must be accompanied by a copy of report and spot survey submitted along with RC Form 19 to the person against whom proceedings have been instituted, or even otherwise submitted in case of suo motu action vide para (ii) above.

(iv) Upon reply being filed to the notice, if authority finds that spot survey/explanation report is not satisfactory, it may order for a fresh spot report to be prepared in presence of the party aggrieved.

(v) In the event, objection includes a plea of statutory protection/ benefit under Sectio