Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9279-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1423 of 2025 Petitioner :- Guru Prasad Nishad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. This petition is similar to Writ-C No. 1443 of 2025 wherein Sri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opp. party No. 6 Jagjeevan Yadav, who is also opp. party No. 6 herein, and the said petition has been disposed of vide our order of date in the following terms: “Sri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opp. party No. 6, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State and perused the record. By means of this petition the petitioner seeks demarcation of land bearing Gata No. 864Mi/0.3790 Hectare situated at Village Bhairopur Tikra, Tehsil Beekapur, District Ayodhya, under Section 24 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code 2006, and also that possession be granted within stipulated time with the help of opp. party No. 3/Sub Divisional Magistrate etc. and also to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.1.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a patta was granted to the petitioner in the year 1995 for agricultural purposes. The said patta-land has been encroached by the opp. party No. 6. It is also stated that till date demarcation of the said land has not been done in spite of repeated requests nor the representation dated 17.1.2025 has been decided. In para-10 of the instant writ petition delay has been sought to be explained by a cursory averment to the effect that it has been caused due to poverty, family problems and wrong assurance of the opp. parties given to the petitioner, as such, delay caused by the petitioner is not intentional, but bona fide, which deserves to be condoned. On the basis of instructions, the learned Standing counsel state that the petitioner has not been in possession. He further states that it appears that the land, patta of which was granted to the petitioner, was declared as 'surplus' under the Ceiling Act, as is mentioned in the category 4-Ka mentioned in the Khatauni, Annexed as Annexure-2, wherein the petitioner is recorded. Instructions taken on record. Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opp. party No. 6, has placed before us a judgment dated 29.1.2025 pertaining to the same Gata bearing No. 864 situated at Village Bhirwapur Tikara, Pargana Pashchim Rath, Tehsil Bikapur, District Faizabad. The said judgment is dated 29.1.2025 and has been passed in Writ-C No. 3000011 of 2003, wherein the opp. party No. 6/Jagjeevan is the petitioner. The opp. party No. 6 herein, who was petitioner in the said petition, challenged the orders dated 19.7.2002 and 28.10.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act. The said orders have been quashed with a direction to the Prescribed Authority to pass afresh orders on the objections filed under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. The contention is that on account of the said judgment the land cannot be treated as 'surplus' and the petitioner does not have any right to maintain this petition. This petition has been filed on 10th February, 2025, i.e. after passing of the said judgment. Moreover, the learned Standing Counsel informs that against the grant of lease to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons in respect of the surplus land, the aggrieved persons appear to have filed an appeal/revision before the Addl. Commissioner, which has been registered as Case No. C200004000000011, Jagjeevan v. Ramdev, wherein on 1.2.2000 an order of status quo was passed. On account of the said status quo order neither any demarcation can take place nor possession can be granted to the petitioner under Section 24 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code 2006. In view of the aforesaid, clearly there is a dispute pertaining to the land. Lease itself appears to be in dispute and the same is pending consideration in the revision, referred hereinabove, wherein there is a status quo order, therefore, the petitioner should join the said proceedings, if he is a party therein, or should intervene therein. Moreover, complications have also arisen on account of the judgment dated 29.1.2025 on account of which the very order by which the land was declared 'surplus', has been quashed, with a direction to take afresh decision. Apart from it, the fact is that since 1995 the petitioner has not been in possession, therefore, there is delay, sofar as maintainability of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, nevertheless as the revisional proceedings are pending, therefore, we cannot interfere in the matter, but we leave it open for the petitioner to pursue other remedies or join the revisional proceedings, as the case may be. In the circumstances, aforesaid, no relief can be granted at this stage as of now. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.” As the facts and issues are similar and the land in respect of which the claim is being raised, is also similar, therefore, we dispose of this petition on the same terms. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 13.2.2025 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench