Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - (1.) Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 5 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Mr. Azad Khan, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no.6. Heard learned counsel for the partied and perused the records.
(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 11.8.2016, passed in Case No.395, filed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code as well as order dated 14.12.2016, passed in Case No.D2016042302238 filed under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, whereby the fifth respondent/Tehsildar Sohawal, District Faizabad has ordered for removal of illegal encroachment of the petitioner over Gata No.640 measuring 0.018 hectare and has imposed damages of Rs.57,600/- and the appeal preferred against the said order has been dismissed by third respondent/Chief Revenue Officer, District Faizabad.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the brother of the petitioner had filed a public interest litigation alleging encroachment over talab land at Gata Nos.636, 637, 638, 639 and 640 situated in Village Arthar, Pargana Magalsi, Tehsil Sohawal, District Faizabad. When the orders passed by the Court were not complied the contempt petition was filed in which counter affidavit was filed by respondents indicating the name of 17 persons who had been found in illegal possession/encroachment and against whom the proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act have been initiated. In the said counter affidavit the name of petitioner was not mentioned, however, subsequent to the disposal of the contempt petition the respondents with malafide intention had issued notice to the petitioner and had initiated the proceedings for removal of illegal encroachment of petitioner over Gata No.640 and a case under Section 67 of U.P.Revenue Code was filed. The petitioner had filed objection in the said case, however, without properly considering the objection the impugned order dated 11.8.2016 was passed. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the said order had preferred an appeal before third respondent which has been decided vide impugned order dated 14.12.2016 and the impugned order dated 11.8.2016 has been upheld.;