Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68970 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2857 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. 12 Other Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "Issue a Writ, order or direction in nature of CERTIORARI to quash/ set aside the impugned undated order (Annexure no.1) passed by the respondent no.3 under section 24 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. Issue a Writ, order or direction in nature of MANDAMUS directing the concerned respondents to not to interfere into the construction of petitioner's boundary wall surrounding the petitioner's School, without passing any order in writing." 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were lodged by the petitioner in which a report was submitted on 05.01.2018 along with field book before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raja Talab, Varanasi on 05.01.2018. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter an undated order has been kept on the record of the case allegedly passed by Anjani Kumar Singh, S.D.M., Raja Talab, Varanasi, whereby the report was rejected and the file was directed to be consigned. It has been further submitted that once the report was rejected it was incumbent upon the S.D.M., Raja Talab, Varanasi, to have called for a fresh report and thereafter to proceed to decide the proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 4. It appears that the concerned S.D.M. is most negligent officer as he has not even cared to put date on the order which is impugned in the writ petition and office has also issued certified copy of an undated order. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has stated that it is correct that no date has been given in the order as per the original record. 6. Considering the rival submission, I am of the view that the order passed by S.D.M. Raja Talab, Varanasi/respondent no. 3 be quashed and the petitioner be given liberty to file fresh application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which shall be considered and decided by the S.D.M. Raja Talab, Varanasi afresh. 7. In view of the above, the impugned undated order (Annexure no.1) passed by the respondent no.3, under section 24 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a fresh report has been submitted on 22.04.2025 mentioning therein that no encroachment has been made by the petitioner. 10. This fact may also be brought to the knowledge of respondent no. 3 and while passing the order, this fact may also be considered by the S.D.M., Raja Talab, Varanasi/respondent no. 3. 11. The petitioner is directed to move fresh application for demarcation and in case, same is moved within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by respondent no. 3 in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties and giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as well as opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad