HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9006 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Pankaj Gupta on behalf of respondent No.4. 1. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the dispute in the present case pertains to gata No.1936 area 0.243 hectare situated at Mohalla Ruknapur, Pargana and Tehsil Bahraich over which the petitioner is claiming his possession since 2006 and also constructed a hut and is residing over the said land. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner had moved an application under Section 122-B(4-F) of U. P. Z. A. and L.R. Act on the basis of his possession and claiming right of bhumidhari with transferable rights. 2. Various reports of revenue authorities were sought for by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Bahraich, who rejected the claim of the petitioner by means of order dated 31.5.2011. While rejecting the application the Sub Divisional Magistrate has noticed that firstly father-in-law of the petitioner was also granted patta adjacent to the said land over an area of 0.02 dicmal. The said land though was initially recorded in the name of number of persons including Chhedi, Rameshwar Prasad etc. and subsequently the revenue 3. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Faiz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Rajwanti .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner 3rd, Devi Patan Division, Gonda And Others .....Respondent(s) records were duly corrected and the land came to be recorded as Naveen Parti by means of order dated 31.1.2009. He has further taken into consideration that during the consolidation proceedings objections were filed by the person namely Chhedi and his objections were allowed and the said land came to be recorded in the name of Chhedi. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has taken into consideration the fact that in case the petitioner was in possession of the said land he could have been impleaded in the proceedings before the consolidation authorities and also file their objections but it is noticed that the petitioner has not filed any objection during the consolidation proceedings with regard to occupation of the land. The first instance which is recorded pertaining to the claim of possession of the petitioner is sometime in 2010 when dispute had occurred between Chhedi and the petitioner with regard to cutting of crops in 2010. There is no material available with regard to occupation of the petitioner with regard to disputed property prior to the said date and accordingly after going into the depth and considering the application of the petitioner the same has been rejected. 4. The petitioner against the order dated 31.5.2011 filed a revision before Additional Commissioner, Bahraich who in the revision also re-considered the entire facts and found that the disputes as initiated by Chhedi has been duly considered and his appeal has been allowed holding that his name is recorded in the disputed land. With regard to possession there is no denial by the petitioner that dispute is between the petitioner and Chhedi. 5. While on the other hand, on the basis of instructions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the gaon sabha has informed this Court that RRC Centre has already been constructed and on the remaining land there is proposal for construction of water tank and an Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery Centre. Considering the rival submissions, we find no error in the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as by the Commissioner in revision rejecting the claim of the petitioner 6. WRIC No. 9006 of 2025 2 under Section 122-B(4-F), U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Even before this Court no fact could be brought on record indicating that the petitioner has been in undisputed possession of the said property prior to 2010 or at the time of cut off date in 2007 and accordingly we do not find any error in the same. There is no material or document filed before the authorities below regarding possession from 2007 onwards and, therefore, no order could have been passed in favour of the petitioner in absence of such material fact. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 7. September 22, 2025 RKM. WRIC No. 9006 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench