1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.5.

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in March 2022, the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been initiated. In April, 2022 the petitioners have initiated the proceedings for settlement of the land in their possession on which they have built house i.e. Gata No.3784- Ka, situated at Village Tikari, Pargana & Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi, which is recorded in the revenue records as Banjar land as petitioners' house has been constructed more than 35 years ago and still exists on the said land. He says that in these circumstances without concluding the proceedings under Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 the attempt of the opposite parties to proceed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code and demolish the house in question cannot be sustained.

3. Mr. Dilip Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha submits that under Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 only the house built thereon if other prerequisites mentioned in the said provision are satisfied would be protected. He says at best the land measuring 200 square meters could get protected and not more, therefore, in any case possession in excess thereof cannot be continued with the petitioners.

4. Be that as it may, once proceedings have initiated under Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi, then they should be concluded at the earliest as proceedings under Section 67 without concluding the proceedings under Section 67- A may result in irreparable loss to the petitioners. This of course is subject to the fact that such proceedings under Section 67- A must have been initiated by the petitioners as per law.

5. In view of the above, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sandila, District Hardoi is directed to verify the facts as to whether such proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner, if they have been initiated then he would conclude the proceedings within a period of two months. In the event such proceedings have been initiated, the proceedings under Section 67 by the Tehsildar against the petitioners in respect of the land in question shall remain in abeyance for two months or till a decision is taken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sandila, District Hardoi under Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

7. It is made clear that if no such proceedings under Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been initiated, then the benefit of this order will not be available to the petitioners.