HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1100 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Satish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 to 4 while Sri Mohan Singh is present for respondent No.5. 1. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that patta of gata No.517 Kha was granted in favour of the petitioner on 23.3.1988 which was situated in Village Bhain, Pargana Meeranpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur and subsequently name of the petitioner was duly recorded in the revenue records. It is against the allotment made in favour of the petitioner that respondent No.6 moved a complaint and an application under Section 198 of U.P. Revenue Code for cancellation of patta. While rejecting the said application it was stated that the complainant had planted several trees which are standing on the disputed land apart from which the said land was recorded as Talab and, the said land could not be subjected to allotment and, therefore, prayed for cancellation of the patta. 3. The entire complaint and the facts narrated by respondent No.6 were duly examined by Additional Collector/ Additional District 4. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Smt. Kamla Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Magistrate (Administration), Sultanpur who found that the land was recorded as Talab within the Gram Sabha land and the said land cannot be given in patta and, therefore, cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner by means of his order dated 14.9.1989. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of the patta, had preferred an appeal before Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division Ayodhya and the appeal was allowed by means of order dated 9.11.2000 only after returning a finding that merely because certain trees are existing which have been planted by the complainant cannot be a ground for cancellation of the patta and, therefore, allowed the appeal. Despite noticing the fact that gata No.517 Kha was recorded as a Talab still he upheld the order passed in favour of the allotment of the patta in favour of the petitioner. 5. Subsequently, a revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed by means of the impugned order dated 17.11.2006 and after considering the entire materiel available on record as well as the orders passed by Additional District Magistrate, it returned a finding that there is no dispute that the land is recorded as Talab which cannot be subject matter of any allotment nor such Gram Sabha land can be allotted and, therefore, upheld the order of Additional District Magistrate, canceling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, after a delay of 12 years an application for recall was filed which has been also been rejected by means of order dated 15.10.2024 after haring the matter at some length stating that all the procedure was followed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that Talab is existing on the disputed land of gata No.517 Kha. 7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, also submitted hat once the land has been declared to be a pond (Talab) and is covered by Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (now 77 of U.P. Revenue Code) and such a land cannot be subject matter of allotment nor can be settled in favour of any private individual. 8. WRIB No. 1100 of 2025 2 Accordingly, considering he rival contentions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said land which has been describe as Talab in the revenue records cannot be allotted to any individual and, therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings returned by Board of Revenue cancelling he patta allotted in favour of the petitioner. 9. In light of the above, I do not find any ground for interference. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 10. November 18, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 1100 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench