Sampurnanand v. Iqbal

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau-respondent no. 3 under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A &L.R Act dismissing the application for restoration and the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau-respondent no. 3 by means of which the application for restoration of the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated

14.08.2025 passed by the Collector, respondent no.2 by means of which the appeal of the petitioner under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been rejected.

The contention of the petitioner is that during the consolidation proceedings the Gata No. 753/5 ( New No. 297) measuring 0.039 Kadi was recorded as "Pokhari" in the revenue records and the order dated

22.09.1974 was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Ghosi in Case No. 5720 under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was passed in this regard. The petitioner on coming to know about the order dated 22.09.1974 passed by the Consolidation Officer had filed an appeal being Appeal No. 738/ 784 under Section 11 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Mau. Further the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide the order dated 24.04.2023 had allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order dated 22.09.1974 and remanded the matter back for reconsideration to the Consolidation Officer, Ghosi. 2 WRIC No. 39128 of 2025

Under the circumstances, it is submitted that the question as to whether the land comprised in Gata No. 297 (Old No. 753/5) is"Pokhari" land is pending consideration before the competent consolidation authority. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile the notice under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R Act, 1950 was issued by the respondent no. 3 and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner an ex parte order dated 21.11.2017 was passed for eviction of the petitioner along with compensation and eviction expenses. The petitioner had subsequently filed an application for restoration on 03.01.2018 after coming to know about the order dated 21.11.2017. Further the application for restoration was rejected on 20.06.2022. Thereafter the petitioner had filed another application for restoration on 27.03.2023 for recalling of the order dated 206.06.2022 but the same was also rejected vide the order dated 23.10.2024. Under the circumstances, the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2024 and 20.06.2022 had filed an appeal before the respondent no.2 under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 but the said appeal was also rejected vide the order dated 14.08.2025.

It is the specific contention of the petitioner that as the question as to whether "Pokhari" is situated over the land comprised in Gata No. 297 (old Gata No. 753/5) is pending adjudication before the Consolidation Officer, the order of eviction of the petitioner could not have been passed. Further the perusal of the impugned order dated 21.11.2017 reveals that neither any spot inspection was carried nor any demarcation was made. A perusal of the order dated 21.11.2017 reveals that the same is cryptic and non-speaking and has been passed on the sole ground that the petitioner has failed to file any objections in response to the notice issued under Section 122-B. Further the order dated 20.06.2022 has been passed without even taking into consideration the averments made in the application for restoration of the petitioner dated 03.01.2018.

The appellate authority in the order dated 27.102.2025 although has taken into consideration the fact that the matter is still pending consideration in consolidation proceedings has failed to give any findings in that regard in the impugned order.

Matter requires consideration. 3 WRIC No. 39128 of 2025

All the respondents are granted four weeks time for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List on 27.04.2026.

Till the next date of listing parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of property in dispute. March 12, 2026 Nadeem (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)