Proceedings under Sections 67 and 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 must be consolidated and heard together.

The petitioners, belonging to Scheduled Castes and OBC categories, claimed to reside in houses built by ancestors on land recorded as rasta (public path) in Gata No. 466

The state authorities issued notices (Form R.C.-20) for eviction and compensation under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, alleging encroachment

The petitioners filed objections and a cross-application under Section 67-A of the Code, seeking settlement of the house sites as they were landless and had been in possession prior to the cutoff date of November 29, 2012

They approached the High Court seeking a mandamus to conclude Section 67-A proceedings and stay the eviction proceedings under Section 67(1) until such disposal

1. Whether an application for settlement of a house site under Section 67-A is maintainable during the pendency of eviction proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

2. Whether the benefit of Section 67-A can be denied if there are other persons available in the village who hold a higher priority in the order of preference specified under Section 64

3. Whether proceedings under Section 67 and Section 67-A should be heard independently or consolidated

Section 67 (eviction from Gram Panchayat land) and Section 67-A (settlement of house sites with existing owners) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

Manorey alias Manohar v. Board of Revenue, which held that statutory deeming provisions for landless labourers create positive rights that do not require a formal allotment order

Asgar v. State of U.P., establishing that Sections 67 and 67-A represent a composite legislative intent and must be heard together to avoid inconsistent judgments

Section 67-A is a benevolent provision aimed at social justice for the rural poor, creating a legal fiction where possession is protected if specific criteria (category of person, date of construction, and nature of land) are met

Section 67-A is a "settlement" by legal fiction, not an "allotment" process; therefore, as long as the occupant falls within any eligible category under Section 64, the benefit applies, regardless of whether higher-priority candidates exist under Section 64

Requiring a separate suit for Section 67-A rights would lead to multiplicity of proceedings; consequently, when a noticee under Section 67 claims the protection of Section 67-A, the two matters become "directly and substantially in issue" and must be consolidated

The Court directed that if a Section 67-A defense is raised in Section 67 proceedings, the Assistant Collector must register the same, consolidate both cases, and decide them together; parties are to maintain status quo until disposal