SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. - (1.) As the petitioner was in occupation over Plot No. 697, area 250 square yard and it was alleged that he was wrongly in possession, proceedings for eviction were initiated but were dropped on 3.9.2014. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated again in the year 2017. To begin with, they were also dropped but thereafter on remand, by the order dated 10.10.2017, eviction was ordered. The Revisional Court also dismissed the Revision. Hence the instant writ petition.
(2.) The very fact, that earlier proceedings were initiated and were dropped after finding that the petitioner's possession was there on the plot in question, is indicative of the fact that the possession had been there since a very long time. Under section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (old Section 123), learned counsel submits the petitioner's possession could have been regularised. Since this aspect of the matter had not been considered, he submits that orders are erroneous.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that neither the provisions of section 123 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (new section 67-A of the Code) had been considered nor had the fact been considered that earlier on 3.9.2014 the proceedings were dropped. Furthermore, learned counsel submits that the document dated 18.6.1968 had also not been denied. Therefore, he submits that definitely long standing possession cannot be denied. He further submits that since the aspect of his being in possession since a very long time had not been considered, the orders were erroneous.;