HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31066 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for private respondent nos. 6 to 8. 2. It is contended that order under Section 129(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed against petitioner which is a perverse order without following due process of law. According to petitioner, the order has been passed on the application moved by private respondents which was not initially filed but subsequent to the decision of contempt court, the said application was filed which was decided hurriedly by authorities within three days. He further contends that the matter was settled orally between the parties long time back and petitioner had paid some money to the respondents to whom the alleged allotment was made. He further submits that the petitioner has constructed a house and is living since long time and the land has been settled in view of Section 9 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. He further submits that without initiating any proceeding for eviction, the order under Section 129(2) of the Code, 2006 has been passed which cannot be sustained. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Apex Court rendered in case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, (2000) 2 SCC 572. 3. Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for private respondents submitted that the land was allotted to private respondents way back in the year 1987 and in the year 2008, after interference of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brajesh Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Kumar, Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C., Sanjay Kumar Singh, Shrawan Kumar Pandey Dharam Pal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) revenue authorities, possession was handed over on 23.10.2008. He has invited attention of the Court to Page No. 33 (annexure-3) of the writ petition, which is possession memo. He further contends that the proceedings under Section 129 of the Code, 2006 was initiated for restoration of the possession and penalty has been imposed upon petitioner who had deliberately dispossessed the private respondents from the land in question in the year 1987. He further contends that no cancellation proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act or under Section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was ever initiated by petitioner against private respondents. 4. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 5. From perusal of the material on record, it is amply clear that in the writ petition, it has been stated that the land was settled in view of Section 9 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act but no declaratory suit has ever been filed by petitioner either under Section 229B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act or under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner has never challenged the allotment made in favour of private respondents which is alleged to have been made in the year 1987. The allotment made in favour of private respondents has remained unchallenged and possession memo, which has been appended by petitioner himself which is of the year 2008, clearly demonstrates the fact that private respondents were handed over possession over the Gata No. 647/3 measuring 0.582 hectare. Once it is an admitted position that respondents were enjoying over the land since 2008, restoration proceedings under Section 129 of the Code, 2006 was rightly initiated and order impugned has been rightly passed. The reliance placed upon the decision of Apex Court rendered in case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable on the facts of the case. 6. No case for interference is made out. 7. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. September 9, 2025 V.S.Singh WRIC No. 31066 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad