HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1006212 of 2005 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Ninnie Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bajrangi Verma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and learned Additional CSC for the respondent - State. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 23.09.2005 passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 06.08.1993, respectively, passed by respondent No.2 contained as annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition. By means of impugned order, the C.R.O. passed an order, whereby on the basis of statement given by learned counsel for the petitioner the matter was finally decided rejecting the claim setup by the petitioner against which a revision was filed that too was dismissed on the ground that counsel appointed by a person has every right to do pairwi on his behalf and on this ground alone the revision was dismissed. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that in the year 1975 a reference under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 bearing No.121/1975; Ram Charan Vs. Daya Shanker was moved before the Joint Director, Consolidation, Faizabad whereby on 03.01.1975 by an ex parte order, the land comprising of Gata No.914 was given in chak to Sri Daya Shanker. 4. Thereafter, on 22.10.1975 on coming to know about the grant of grant No.914 in chak to Daya Shanker, an application was moved by one Sri Ram Milan and others for setting aside the ex parte order passed in reference case No.121/1975 which was allowed by the Joint Director, Consolidation, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : R.P.Maurya, Ninnie Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., A.K. Mishra, Bajrangi Verma Hausila Prasad Z.A. Act Additional Commissioner Judicial Ii And 4 Ors. Faizabad on 21.06.1997 and the land in question was allotted for public purpose i.e. Khalihan. 5. In the year 1989 an application was moved before the SDO Akbarpur, Faizabad (now Ambedkar Nagar) for measurement of patta of the land including gata No.914 for delivery of possession of said land by respondent nos.4 & 5. On 22.12.1989 the petitioner along with others moved an application to stop the measurement on the ground that patta claimed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 was forged one. 6. On 18.04.1990 the concerned Tehsildar submitted his report which indicates that the alleged patta could not have been executed in favour of both opposite parties Nos.4 & 5 as at the relevant time in the year 1974 none were eligible for execution of patta in their favour as o.p. No.4 was minor and o.p. No.5 had already had much land in his name. On the basis of report of Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar the respondent No.3 - S.D.O. Akbarpur, Faizabad declared the alleged patta in favour of respondnet Nos.4 & 5 as illegal and void. 7. On 06.03.1991, the petitioner filed objections before respondent no.3 challenging the validity of patta in favour of respondent Nos.4 & 5. The matter was transferred to the Court of ADM (Finance and Revenue) on 09.06.1993. Respondent No.2 -C.R.O. rejected the application of the petitioner for cancellation of forged patta alleged to have been granted in faovur of respondent Nos.4 & 5 only on the oral statement of counsel for the petitioner. Neither the petitioner himself authorized the withdrawal of his application before respondent No.2 nor any written application under his signature for the same was ever moved. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a revision before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad under Section 333 of U.P. ZA&LR Act 1950. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial) - II Faizabad Division, Faizabad rejected the revision on the ground that counsel for the petitioner before the lower court was binding upon the applicant. 9. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question is public utility land which is khalihan and fulwari and in this regard the petitioner has moved an application / complaint that the land in WRIC No. 1006212 of 2005 2 question cannot be allotted through lease to anyone and his application is on record as annexure 5 to the writ petition, wherein it has specifically been stated that it is public utility land and that cannot be allotted to any person. 10. While deciding the issue in question, the application was moved on which report has also been submitted by the Tehsildar has also not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order by the Addittional Collector, therefore, the order of Additional Collector due to non consideration of aforesaid aspect of the matter suffers from apparent illegality and is liable to be quashed by this Court. 11. The revisional authority has only considered that it is the Advocate who entered into compromise that he has not moved the application nor is contesting the case. The revision was dismissed on this ground alone that the Advocate is empowered by the petitioner to do pairwi on his behalf. The revisional court would have perused the material on record and thereafter come to the conclusion that whether the order has been passed taking into consideration the application and report of the petitioner as well as Tehsildar. 12. No finding has been returned on this aspect of the matter, therefore, the order of revisional court is also not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. 13. In view of the reasons recorded above, the impugned orders dated 23.09.2005 passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 06.08.1993, respectively, passed by respondent No.2 contained as annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. 14. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 15. However, the matter is remanded back to the Chief Revenue Officer, Faizabad to consider the application of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. September 24, 2025 Adarsh K Singh WRIC No. 1006212 of 2005 3 (Irshad Ali,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench