Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38786-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 342 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vishwa Deepak Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Ratnesh Chandra,Sharad Tewari Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri Ratnesh Chandra assisted by Sri Manav Rathore, counsel for opposite party no. 5 and Ms Isha Mittal, learned A.C.S.C. for the State. 2. What transpires from the record is that the land in question was recorded in the name of opposite party no. 7. 3. The opposite party no. 7 had filed an application before the competent authority under section 122-B(4F) of the UPZA & LR Act. The said provision for ready reference is extracted below:- "Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-sections, where any agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before [May 13, 2007] and the land so occupied together with land, if any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and [he shall be admitted as bhumidhar with non- transferable rights of that land under Section 195 and it shall not be necessary for him to institute a suit for declaration of his rights as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights in that land.]" 4. The record reveals that the competent authority as regards the possession of opposite party no. 7, called for a report from the concerned Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector. On verification of the possession of opposite party no. 7 upon the disputed property i.e. Gata No. 7KA-M measuring 0.506 hectares, the competent authority approved the non-transferable Bhumidhari Rights of Sri Suresh Kumar. 5. It appears that on the completion of the possession for five years from the date of recognising non-transferable Bhumidhari Rights as above, the full fledged rights were conferred by the competent authority upon the opposite party no. 7 vide order dated 30.11.2021 under section 76(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The question as to whether the Gaon Sabha or the State was a necessary party at the time when the application under section 122-B(4F) was made on 15.11.2011, the answer to the question is to be ascertained from the plain reading of the provision itself i.e. section 122-B(4F), which is extracted above. 6. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 5 drawing our attention to section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 has argued that in the matters of declaration, the impleadment of Gaon Sabha/State is necessary. He however, submitted that no such requirement is envisaged within the scope of section 122-B(4F), on an application made by a beneficiary for recording his name as Bhumidar with non- transferable rights. In other words, such an application can be entertained by the competent authority on administrative side and upon verification of the possession, the necessary entry in the revenue record can summarily be made, as is the case at hand. 7. To buttress the submission put forth, it is argued that non- impleadment of Gaon Sabha/State, on such an application would not be necessary for the reason that the entry made in the revenue record on the premises of such an application remains open for adjudication in a suit that can be filed by an aggrieved party under section 145 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006. For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinunder:- "Declaratory suit by Gram Panchayat.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Gram Panchayat may institute a suit against any person claiming to be entitled to any right in any land for the declaration of the right of such person in such land, and the Court may, in its discretion, make a declaration of the right of such person, and the Gram Panchayat need not in such suit ask for any further relief." 8. The submissions made by learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 in the light of statutory provisions extracted above has force. In other words, the entry of opposite party no. 7 in the revenue records would merely re-recognise the bhumidhari rights of such a party which would remain open to be questioned by any aggrieved party within the scope of section 145 of the Code, 2006. No such proceedings have been initiated by the State or Gaon Sabha until date, despite the report of the District Magistrate having been drawn in terms of the order passed by this Court on 26.05.2025. This report, however, is of no advantage to the present petitioner who has instituted the instant petition in public interest, wherein, he cannot be permitted to question the validity of orders passed by the revenue authorities, in accordance with the provisions of statute. 9. The writ petition for the relief sought herein in our considered opinion, is not maintainable and the same deserves to be rejected. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. The rejection of writ petition however, shall not preclude the Gaon Sabha/State to question the legality of the orders passed on 14.10.2015 or 30.11.2021 under section 145 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006. (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) (A.R. Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Mayank Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench