Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3311 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 486 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prabhakant Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunita Dwivedi,Vishal Kannojia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 6 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Under challenge is the order dated 19.06.2024 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order passed by the Court of first instance dated 01.05.2024. The record indicates that the proceedings were initiated under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R Act by the respondent no.6. It was a case of the State Authorities that the disputed plot no.417 and 928 have been allegedly recorded in the name of Shanti Devi in Category-3 whereas the plot no.928(M) is recorded as 'pond land. Upon due consideration, the respondent no.6 by means of the order dated 01.05.2024 allowed the petition, as a consequence, the petitioners were required to remove their possession. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent no.5 and the revisional court also considering the fact that the land in question is recorded as 'pond land' affirmed the order dated 01.05.2024. Assailing the two orders, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's mother was granted an asami Patta on 04.02.1982 and it is further stated that the said land was not recorded as 'pond land' since the time when consolidation came in the village in question and the petitioner has planted a grove on the said land. Accordingly, the two courts have committed an error in passing the impugned orders on the premise that the same is 'pond land". Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it is not disputed by the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner was granted an asami patta in the year 1982. Needless to say that the said Patta at the outset could have been for a period of 5 years. However, if the contention of the petitioner while referring to the plot numbers is considered, it would reveal that in Annexure No.10, a certified copy of the Khasra relating to fasli year 1359 (1952 CE) wherein against plot no.433 name of Ram Kumar has been recorded which is shown as 'Baag'. An attempt has been made by drawing the attention of the Court to Annexure no.9 which is Form CH-41 to indicate that new plot no.928 which is claimed by the petitioner was carved out from plot no.533/2 but it does not indicate as to how it is relatable to the old plot no.433 which has been referred to in Annexure no.10. The Form 41 also indicates that plot no.928 and 417 has been shown as 'pond land'. Even taking the case of the petitioner at best an Asami patta under which the petitioners are claiming right could only be for a period of five years and not beyond that. In this view of the matter, where the aforesaid facts are not disputed, the rights of the petitioner could not exceed a period of five year. Accordingly, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench