Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14524-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2478 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hina Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Dixit,Devam Shukla,Purusottam Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. This case has been taken up on urgency being mentioned on behalf of the petitioner by her Counsel stating that the Gram Sabha is allegedly constructing some water tank on the land of the petitioner. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party No.5 is dispensed with. 3. Heard Shri Vijay Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey for the Gram Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 4. The petitioner claims to have purchased a part of Gata No.362 i.e. Gata No.362/2 from the erstwhile tenure holder. The part purchased by the petitioner is 0.630 hectare. The other part i.e. Gata No.362/1 (0.291 hectare) is recorded in the name of Ram Kumari-opposite party No.5. The third part i.e. Gata No.362/3 measuring 0.405 hectare is recorded in the name of Gram Sabha. Now, the Gram Sabha proposes to undertake some construction on the aforesaid Gata. The theoretical division of the Gata has taken place that is why it has been divided into Gata No.362/1, 362/2 and 362/3 and the said lands are mentioned in three different Khatas, however, actual division by metes and bounds has not taken place. 5. The contention of the petitioner's Counsel is that when she sought to get her name mutated, it came to her knowledge that there was some dispute for division of the Minjumla Gata and demarcation of the boundaries. The opposite party No.5 sought to initiate proceedings under Section 30(2) of the Code, 2006 but the same was not accepted by the opposite parties whereupon, she filed a writ petition bearing Writ-C No.5194 of 2024 (Smt. Ram Kumari vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) wherein instructions were called from the Counsel for the Gram Sabha. On this, the construction had been stopped but now as the said case has not been listed for quite sometime, they are again constructing the water tank. 6. We are of the opinion that it is the Gram Sabha, who should have initiated proceedings under Section 30(2) of the Code, 2006 for division of the Minjumla Gata by metes and bounds and thereafter should have undertaken construction of the water tank as without such actual division of the holding, they could not have possibly undertaken the construction as there would be possibility of encroachment on somebody else's land/share. 7. The Gram Sabha, who is one of the khatedar, is directed to initiate proceedings for physical division of the Minjumla Gata under Section 30(2) of the Code, 2006 and corresponding rules at the earliest and if any such application is filed, the competent authority shall immediately undertake the said exercise and complete it at the earliest so that the water tank is constructed on the land of the Gram Sabha but, till such exercise, the construction of the water tank should not be undertaken as it will create unnecessary complications and will lead to unnecessary litigation as is already the case. Let this exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the competent authority. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 10.3.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench