Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40668 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1002332 of 2003 Petitioner :- Smt. Prema Devi Respondent :- Collector Pratapgarh And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Saran Nigam,Lalji Yadav,Pankaj Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,R.N Gupta Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J. 1. Heard Sri Lalji Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent - State. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned orders dated 16.06.2003 and 30.09.1985 contained as Annexures 1&3 to the writ petition. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that one Satyadev s/o Mahadev was owner in possession of an ahata with his house thereon. The petitioner purchased a portion of 15X35 fit total 525 square fit land from Sri Satyadev through a registered sale deed dated 10.08.1979 and has constructed his house thereon. However, in the month of April, 1984 the petitioner had been served with a notice on Z.A. From 49-A calling upon him to vacate the land in dispute as the same was purportedly belongs to Gaon Sabha 4. The petitioner challenged the correctness of the notice and filed his objection pleading that the land in dispute was the personal property of Sri Satyadev s/o Mahadev from whom he has purchased the same and Gaon Sabha had no concern with the same. However, Tehsildar, Kunda, Pratapgarh vide order dated 30.09.1985 held the petitioner under unauthorized occupation over the land of gaon sabha and orders his ejectment and further imposed Rs.3500/- as damages against him. 5. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 30.09.1985 passed by the Tehsildar, Kunda, the petitioner filed a revision before the Collcetor, Pratapgarh, however, respondent No.1 dismissed the revision vide order dated 16.06.2003 even without looking into facts and circumstances of the case and even without taking into consideration the evidence available on record. 6. Satyadev s/o Mahadev was the owner in possession of house with land known as ahata of Satyadev before the abolition of zamindari and after abolition of zamindari, he became the owner thereof by virtue of Section 9 of U.P. ZA&LR Act. 7. Village Purvara has been subject to consolidation operations. During consolidation, Sri Satyadev s/o Mahadev moved an application before the consolidation officer for getting the said land recorded as Abadi under Ziman-6 in the khatauni and on his application, the aforesaid land was numbered as plot No.472/2898/1 vide order of consolidation officer dated 12.10.1974 passed in case No.10510. 8. Sri Satyadev transferred a small portion of his ahata to two different persons namely, Sri Raja Ram Maurya and Sri Ram Sajeevan Viswakarma. Somewhere in 1983-84, proceedings under Section 122-B U.P. ZA& LR Act had been initiated against aforesaid Raja Ram and Ram Sajeevan Viswakarma describing the land under their possession as the property of gaon sabha. However, both the aforesaid Sri Raja Ram and Ram Sajeevan Viswakarma challenged the notice and contested the proceedings and denied the rights of gaon sabha. 9. The Tehsildar / Asstt. Collector, Kunda after hearing the parties, dropped the proceedings and withdrew the notice under Section 122-B of U.P. ZA& LR Act vide order dated 29.03.1985 after holding that the land in dispute was not the property of gaon sabha. 10. A proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P. ZA&LR Act had been initiated against Sri Satyadev s/o Mahadev, the predecessor of the petitioner also and on 30.09.1985 the order has been passed against him by the Tehsildar, Kunda holding that the land in dispute as property of gaon sabha. However, Sri Satyadev filed a revision against the aforesaid order of Tehsildar Kunda, which was allowed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Pratapgarh vide order dated 25.11.1990. 11. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in regard to same land Sri Raja Ram Mauray and Sri Ram Sajeevan Viswakarma notice under Section 122-B has been withdrawn by the Tehsildar / Asstt. Collector as well as the revision filed against him has been dismissed, therefore, the same land cannot be denied to be under possession of the petitioner. 12. He next submitted that the proceeding under Section 122-B has also been initiated against the petitioner which has been dismissed vide impugned order and the revision filed against that has also been dismissed. 13. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and are just and valid. 14. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 15. On bare perusal of impugned orders, it is evident that proceeding under Section 49 and 122-B have been allowed by the Tehsildar, Kunda Pratapgarh and the revision filed against that has also been dismissed by recording erroneous finding and without taking into consideration the relevant evidence on record. 16. Once, the property of Satyadev s/o Mahadev under the same proceeding has held to be genuine, there was no justification on the part of respondent Nos.1 & 2 to allow the notice under Section 122-B and dismissing the revision. 17. Once the proceeding of Satyadev on the same footing in regard to same land has been allowed, there is no justification to reject the claim setup by the petitioner. 18. In view of reasons recorded above, the impugned orders suffers from apparent illegality and are liable to be quashed. 19. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 16.06.2003 and 30.09.1985 contained as Annexures 1&3 to the writ petition are hereby set aside. 20. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 21. The matter is remanded back to the revisional authority to reconsider the proportion of the claim setup by the Satyadev s/o Mahadev and to pass appropriate order within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Adarsh K Singh Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench