HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11217 of 2025 Court No. - 22 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. Instructions filed by learned Standing Counsel for the State is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ram Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikramdutt Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and learned Sri Deo Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3-State. 3. Present petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 08.10.2020 passed by opposite party no.2 in Case No.293/2008-2009, Computerised Case No. C2008080000189 (Mst. Dulara Devi vs. State of U.P.) under Section 33 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 and impugned order dated 03.02.2005 passed by opposite party no.3 in Case No.889/56/105/5 under Section 229B Z.A. and L.R. Act. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of continuous possession for more than 16 years, a suit of declaration under Section 229B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, mother of the petitioner was declared a Bhumidhar of Gata No. 1648, area 0.579 hectare by order dated 24.06.1997 considering the proposal of Gaon Sabha. This order was recalled by the order dated 16.07.2001 on the application of Goan Sabha against which a revision was filed by mother of the petitioner and the revision was allowed by order dated 28.05.2003 and the matter was remanded to the SDM, Kaisarganj. The SDM concerned issued notice to the petitioner but despite repeated opportunity, the mother of petitioner did not turn up, therefore, vide order dated 03.02.2005, the order dated 16.07.2001 was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Prasad Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Bhagvan Prasad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Bahraich And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) reiterated and declaration of mother of the petitioner Dulara Devi was cancelled. Against the order dated 03.02.2005, the applicant preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner-III, Devipatan which was also rejected vide order dated 08.10.2020 by which the order of the SDM dated 03.02.2005 was affirmed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders dated 03.02.2005 and 08.10.2020 are absolutely erroneous as the order dated 03.02.2005 was passed without hearing the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that despite repeated opportunity, the mother of the petitioner did not turn up before the SDM, therefore, the order dated 03.02.2005 was passed on the basis of record. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 03.02.2005 or the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner-III, Devipatan. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is not in dispute that initially order dated 26.06.1997 was passed on the basis of statement of Gram Pradhan that the petitioner was in possession of Goan Sabha for more than 16 years though subsequently that order was recalled and on remand of the case by the revisional court, the SDM issued repeated notice to the mother of the petitioner but she did not turn up and order dated 03.10.2025 was passed. Even otherwise, there is no provision in the U.P. Z.A & L.R. or revenue code which permits the person to become a Bhumidhar merely because he has been in possession over the Gaon Sabha land for considering long period. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order order dated 03.02.2005 passed by SDM and the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner-III Devipatan. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. December 1, 2025 A.Kr* WRIC No. 11217 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench