Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34949-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5793 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hari Narayan Pandey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue U.P. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi,Adityendra Maurya,Deepesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. Heard Shri Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has instructions that whatever construction would be under taken in pursuance to the resolution contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition as approved by the S.D.M. the trees existing on Gata No. 86 which are the subject matter of proceedings under Section 56 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are not affected at all. The petitioner no. 2 had earlier filed a writ petition bearing Writ - C No. 1463 of 2025 which was decided on 14.02.2025 in the following terms:- "1. Heard. 2. The petitioner claims to have planted about 50 trees on Gata No.86 and 88, however, on being asked to demonstrate whether the land belongs to him, he could not furnish any proof though he claimed that he is in possession for the past 100 years. In any case, even if the petitioner claims title to trees then he will have to seek other remedies or if he seeks an injunction to the opposite parties not to cut the trees even then he will have to approach some other court, we cannot go into such questions of fact especially in absence of requisite pleadings and documents. 3. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of." Thereafter, the petitioner has already approached the Chief Revenue Officer under Section 56 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 wherein a status quo order dated 13.05.2025 is operating, therefore, if the petitioners have any grievance they can raise it in those proceedings before the Chief Revenue Officer, as, the petitioners are claiming rights only in respect of the trees. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners says that petitioners are also claiming right in respect of the land bearing Gata No. 86 and 88, however, this was not the prayer in the earlier writ petition. Nevertheless, even if it is so, we can not go into questions of title and there is no such order of any court in respect of the land which could persuade us to interfere in the matter. As regards the challenge to the resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha we do not see any reason to entertain this writ petition at the behest of the petitioners. They may seek remedies elsewhere uninfluenced by this observation. The Chief Revenue Officer who has passed the status quo order is competent to get his order enforced. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. . (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 6.6.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench