High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Kunj Bihari Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondents. Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for the private respondent. This Court on 21.09.2024 had passed a detailed order which reads as under: "This is one of unfortunate cases where neither the full facts have been brought on record by the private contesting parties nor there has been proper assistance by the State. This is being observed for the reason that the land in question is alleged to be a pond land and the same vests in the Gaon Sabha who is none other than a caretaker for the State. The petition has been engaging the attention of this Court since 2002 and though the petition stood dismissed for want of prosecution but by means of order dated 08.05.2024, the petition was restored to its original number. Despite the matter was heard on 03.09.2024, 12.09.2024 and 13.09.2024 and so also on 21.09.2024 but neither the counsel for the petitioner or the respondent or the State could really provide any assistance. Ram Lal, the petitioner had instituted the petition assailing the order dated 02.04.2002 whereby the Additional Collector, Pratapgarh rejected the application for recall moved at the behest of the petitioner, hence, the order dated 27.06.1996 by which a review application was allowed and the original order dated 03.04.1980 was set aside, its consequence was that an alleged fraudulent entry in the name of the private respondents stood revived. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, briefly, the facts are being stated hereinafter:- The matter relates to Plot No. 646/2 measuring 6 Bighas situate in Village Para Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh. The case setup by the petitioner is that the private respondent no.2 had illegally got his name mutated in respect of plot no. 646/2 measuring 6 bighas, as mentioned above, which otherwise is the pond land and vested with the Gaon Sabha. It is in the aforesaid context that an application for reference was moved purportedly under Section 48 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1953). The said reference was filed by the petitioner along with one Sri Jhagai. The matter was inquired and prima facie the allegations of fraudulent entry in respect of the property in question, mutated in the name of the private respondent no. 2 was found to be correct, hence, by means of order dated 03.04.1980, the reference was allowed and the entry in favour of the private respondent no. 2 was expunged. The private respondent no. 2 moved an application on 08th August, 1980 seeking review of the order dated 03.04.1980 by which the entry in favour of the private respondent no. was expunged. The said application for review was dismissed in default on 22.07.1989. The private respondent no. 2 thereafter filed an application seeking to recall the earlier order dated 22.07.1989 (by which his review-application which was dismissed in default was also dismissed for want of prosecution. Again, another restoration application was moved which also came to be dismissed on 23.01.1980. Yet again, another application was moved on 07.10.1992 and upon this application, the respondent no. 1 by means of order dated 27.06.1996 set aside the order dated 03.04.1980 and by which the entry in favour of the respondent no. 2 was expunged and then listed the reference for hearing. By the same order, it also noticed that since the land of Gaon Sabha is involved, hence, notice be issued to the Gaon Sabha concerned. Soon After, passing of the order dated 27.06.1996 on 25.07.1996, the reference proceedings were also dismissed in default. The legal position as obtained, in light of the aforesaid facts, is that the initial order by which the entries in favour of the private respondent no. 2 was expunged, was set aside and the proceedings also were dismissed for want of prosecution, hence, the entry in favour of the private respondent no. 2 continued to subsist. It is at this stage that the instant petition came to be filed in the year 2002 The record indicates that really speaking neither the Gaon Sabha was impleaded as a party by the petitioner nor the State who had received notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 made any attempt to point out these facts to the Court nor raised any objection that since at one point of time, it was adjudicated and was also reflected from the order dated 27.06.1996 that the rights of the Gaon Sabha are involved and it would be adversely impacted as the land belonged to the Gaon Sabha, however, yet no sich effort was made to protect the disputed property. The record would indicate that the private respondent no. 2 had filed a very sketchy counter affidavit dated 06.01.2004. In the said counter affidavit, it was pleaded by the private respondent no. 2 that the respondent had received lease hold rights in the land in question from the Gaon Sabha. Another issue was raised that the petitioner does not have the locus-standi to maintain the petition as the Gaon Sabha has not challenged the lease/patta of the private respondent no.2 and in light thereof the petitioner did not have a right to assail the said patta. However, what is significant to note that neither at the time of filing of the counter affidavit by the private respondent no. 2, any document of right including the lease was brought on record by the private respondent no. 2. The record would further indicate that the petitioner once again by means of a supplementary affidavit dated 24.09.2021 had filed certain orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation purporting to be under Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953 on record including the order dated 17.08.1992 and copies of the Khataunis relating to Fasli year 1353 and 1362 as well as CH Form No.-45 to indicate that the private respondent no. 2 had resorted to fraud as well as the land which was recorded as pond land has been was sought to be usurped by the private respondent no 2. Even though, the said supplementary affidavit was filed on 29.09.2021 but the private respondent no. 2 did not file any reply to controvert the averments made therein. As already stated above that this Court did not receive assistance from either the private parties or the State despite noticing that the matter was heard on few dates and yet the State did not make any effort to either get the Gaon Sabha impleaded or to even suggest as to how the pond land was being usurped and no action was taken. It is in this context when this Court examined the matter on its own, it is found that despite a categorical stand taken by the private respondent no. 2 that the land in question was given on lease to the private respondent no. 2 by the Gaon Sabha but no such document has been placed on record by any of the parties including the private respondent no. 2. There are allegations that the order dated 03.04.1980 was fraudulent as well as the fact that a reference which was made by the petitioner and one Jhagai Lal who also did not indicate their right in the property in question and despite specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mishra as to the locus-standi of the petitioner, he could not explain the same. He also could not explain under what circumstances, the reference was moved under Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953. Be that as it may, neither the proper documents have been brought on record relating to the application for reference, nor any report which must have been called for to verify the averments made in the alleged application for reference has been placed on record. The order dated 03.04.1980 by which the entry in the name of the private respondent no. 2 was expunged also was not brought on record along with the writ petition, however, later a copy of the said order has been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit filed in the year 2021. There are allegations that the said order was an outcome of fraud. The learned counsel for the private respondent no. 2 could not dispute the fact that in case if the findings as recorded in the order dated 03.04.1980 is correct then apparently all the other pleas raised by the private respondent would fail. Significantly, this aspect has also not been explained by the learned counsel for the State. The record further reflects that the private respondent no. 2 had moved an application for recall/review of the order dated 03.04.1980. The said application for review/recall of the private respondent no. 2 was dismissed on 22.07.1989. The issue that requires further investigation was whether the order dated 03.04.1980 could have been reviewed at the behest of the private respondent no. 2. Several applications for restoration were made successively by the private respondent no. 2 and they too came to be rejected. Later, with the order dated 27.06.1996, the initial order dated 03.04.1980 was set aside. It could also not be clarified by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor by the learned counsel for the State and the private respondent no. 2 that in context of an application/reference made under the U.P. C.H. Act of 1953, how could the restoration applications be allowed by the Additional District Magistrate, Land & Revenue as shall be seen by the order which has been brought on record as Annexure no. 1. An order passed by the Consolidation Authorities can only be challenged and can be set to naught by the Consolidation Authorities itself under the Scheme of the Act. Even if a petition is dismissed in default which was instituted under the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953, its restoration can only be allowed by the Consolidation Authorities competent to do so and not by any Revenue Authority exercising power under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 or U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Prima facie from the material available on record, it appears that Plot No. 646/2 is recorded as pond land in the revenue records. In such circumstances, where none of the parties could explain the correct position and the land naturally belongs to the State and at one point of time, there is a finding that the land of the State is being fraudulently usurped, hence, this Court taking note of this fact directs the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh to hold an inquiry in respect of the Plot No. 646/2 measuring 6 Bighas situate in Village Para, Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh and to examine whether in respect of the said land any lease was executed by the Gaon Sabha in favour of the private respondent no. 2 and he shall also take note of the orders which have been brought on record by the petitioner with the instant petition including annexed with his supplementary affidavit dated 29.09.2021 and report its status as to whether the private respondent had any right in the said property as well as examine the authenticity of the order dated 22.07.1989, a reference of which is mentioned in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner by verifying it from the records drawn and maintained by the Consolidation and Revenue Authorities including the status of the property in question, entries in respect thereto including the alleged one in favour of the private respondent no. 2. He shall also inquire as to the fact that once the proceedings were pending before this Court where notices were received by the State on behalf of the Additional District Magistrate, Land Revenue why the matter was not inquired and the correct facts brought before the Court including the fact as to why the Gaon Sabha did not contest the proceedings nor the State took effective measures to protect its property, if it is so. The entire report shall be placed before this Court by 21st October, 2024 and the matter shall be listed for further hearing and then all pleas open to the parties shall be considered on its merits. A copy of this order shall also be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P. for information as well as to ensure compliance. " Thereafter, again on 23.01.2025 the Court had passed following order which reads as under: "1. This petition was listed on 21.1.2025 in the Additional Cause list at serial no.3041 and it was ordered to be listed on 23.1.2025 at 1.00 p.m. for further hearing.

2.Accordingly, the case has come up today in the Additional Cause List-I at serial no.3350.

3. Due to typographical error, the month of listing has wrongly been transcribed as February,2025 instead of January, 2025. The words "for further hearing" could also not be transcribed in the order dated 21.1.2025.

4.This court on 21.9.2024 passed a detailed order wherein it was specifically noticed that this is one of those unfortunate cases where neither the full facts had been brought on record by the petitioners and the contesting private respondents nor there was proper assistance by the respondent State.

5. The court prima facie found certain discrepancies in the order dated 21.9.2024 and the relevant part of the said order is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference :- "Prima facie from the material available on record, it appears that Plot No. 646/2 is recorded as pond land in the revenue records. In such circumstances, where none of the parties could explain the correct position and the land naturally belongs to the State and at one point of time, there is a finding that the land of the State is being fraudulently usurped, hence, this Court taking note of this fact directs the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh to hold an inquiry in respect of the Plot No. 646/2 measuring 6 Bighas situate in Village Para, Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh and to examine whether in respect of the said land any lease was executed by the Gaon Sabha in favour of the private respondent no. 2 and he shall also take note of the orders which have been brought on record by the petitioner with the instant petition including annexed with his supplementary affidavit dated 29.09.2021 and report its status as to whether the private respondent had any right in the said property as well as examine the authenticity of the order dated 22.07.1989, a reference of which is mentioned in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner by verifying it from the records drawn and maintained by the Consolidation and Revenue Authorities including the status of the property in question, entries in respect thereto including the alleged one in favour of the private respondent no. 2. He shall also inquire as to the fact that once the proceedings were pending before this Court where notices were received by the State on behalf of the Additional District Magistrate, Land Revenue why the matter was not inquired and the correct facts brought before the Court including the fact as to why the Gaon Sabha did not contest the proceedings nor the State took effective measures to protect its property, if it is so. The entire report shall be placed before this Court by 21st October, 2024 and the matter shall be listed for further hearing and then all pleas open to the parties shall be considered on its merits. A copy of this order shall also be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P. for information as well as to ensure compliance."

6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh had filed his personal affidavit dated 11.12.2024 wherein an attempt was made to try to justify the manner in which the proceedings had been held. However, what is conspicuously absent from the record is, that since the date of order dated 21.9.2024, the State has not yet woken up from its sleep and despite more than three months, the counter affidavit to the writ petition has not been filed. A copy of the written instructions has been placed on record under the signatures of District Magistrate alongwith certain documents which apparently cannot partake the nature of the counter affidavit.

7. The court had also expressed its anguish in the said order and has also raised the matter upon to the State Government to consider the matter on merits but the State till date has not filed any counter affidavit. It appears that the State is not even bothered regarding the issue involved in the case, taking away its own land by the private parties in collusion with each other.

8.This court once again on 21.11.2024 had noticed that even in the personal affidavit filed by the District Magistrate dated 19.11.2024, certain enquiry was made but the manner in which the inquiry was conducted, was not satisfactory.

9.Today again, written instructions under the signatures of the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh has been provided to the court dated 22.1.2025 wherein it has been indicated that the matter has been referred to the State Government for inquiry.

10.Having considered the aforesaid, what is most striking is the feature that even though repeated affidavits and instructions are being placed on record by the State under the signatures of responsible officers such as the District Magistrate but the fact remains that no counter affidavit has been filed till date nor the State has placed its stand on record even though the petition is of the year 2002 and 22 years have lapsed.

11.Learned Standing Counsel submits that he may be granted a further week's time so that the counter affidavit can be filed but this lacsidical attitude of the State only compounds the problem and the fact that stares at the face is complete laxity on behalf of the respondent State to context the proceedings.

12. However, as a last resort, a week's further time is granted to the State to file its counter affidavit subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- as cost to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, within the aforesaid period of one week.

13. List this case again on 30.1.2025. In case if the counter affidavit is not filed, the matter shall be heard in its absence.

14. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P., for information and necessary action. " In furtherance thereof, learned Standing counsel had filed counter affidavit of Sri Onkar Sharan Singh Consolidation Officer Sadar-II Pratapgarh wherein it has been stated by him that the orders which had been passed earlier by the D.D.C they had been set aside by means of the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the D.D.C Pratapgarh and a copy of the said order has been brought on record as part of Annexure-6 with the counter filed. It has also been pointed out that after earlier orders dated 27.06.1996 and 25.07.1996 has been set aside, the initial order dated 03.04.1980 has been maintained. The parties have been given opportunity to present their submissions and the matter is being listed before competent court for consideration on merits. Considering the aforesaid submissions the issue in so far as the petitioner is concerned he does not have any locus which has already been noticed by the Court while passing a detailed order dated 21.09.2024. As of today, there is no challenge to the order which has been passed by the D.D.C dated 11.12.2024. In light of the above, the petition at this stage, has lost its efficacy as the earlier order dated 03.04.1980 has been maintained. Accordingly, considering the earlier orders and the status of the proceedings which have been brought on record by the learned Standing counsel by filing counter affidavit, no further orders are required to be passed in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in light of the earlier orders dated 21.09.2024 and in view of the order passed today noticing the order of the D.D.C dated 11.12.2024. Order Date :- 14.2.2025/Harshita HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Kunj Bihari Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondents. Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for the private respondent. This Court on 21.09.2024 had passed a detailed order which reads as under: "This is one of unfortunate cases where neither the full facts have been brought on record by the private contesting parties nor there has been proper assistance by the State. This is being observed for the reason that the land in question is alleged to be a pond land and the same vests in the Gaon Sabha who is none other than a caretaker for the State. The petition has been engaging the attention of this Court since 2002 and though the petition stood dismissed for want of prosecution but by means of order dated 08.05.2024, the petition was restored to its original number. Despite the matter was heard on 03.09.2024, 12.09.2024 and 13.09.2024 and so also on 21.09.2024 but neither the counsel for the petitioner or the respondent or the State could really provide any assistance. Ram Lal, the petitioner had instituted the petition assailing the order dated 02.04.2002 whereby the Additional Collector, Pratapgarh rejected the application for recall moved at the behest of the petitioner, hence, the order dated 27.06.1996 by which a review application was allowed and the original order dated 03.04.1980 was set aside, its consequence was that an alleged fraudulent entry in the name of the private respondents stood revived. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, briefly, the facts are being stated hereinafter:- The matter relates to Plot No. 646/2 measuring 6 Bighas situate in Village Para Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh. The case setup by the petitioner is that the private respondent no.2 had illegally got his name mutated in respect of plot no. 646/2 measuring 6 bighas, as mentioned above, which otherwise is the pond land and vested with the Gaon Sabha. It is in the aforesaid context that an application for reference was moved purportedly under Section 48 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1953). The said reference was filed by the petitioner along with one Sri Jhagai. The matter was inquired and prima facie the allegations of fraudulent entry in respect of the property in question, mutated in the name of the private respondent no. 2 was found to be correct, hence, by means of order dated 03.04.1980, the reference was allowed and the entry in favour of the private respondent no. 2 was expunged. The private respondent no. 2 moved an application on 08th August, 1980 seeking review of the order dated 03.04.1980 by which the entry in favour of the private respondent no. was expunged. The said application for review was dismissed in default on 22.07.1989. The private respondent no. 2 thereafter filed an application seeking to recall the earlier order dated 22.07.1989 (by which his review-application which was dismissed in default was also dismissed for want of prosecution. Again, another restoration application was moved which also came to be dismissed on 23.01.1980. Yet again, another application was moved on 07.10.1992 and upon this application, the respondent no. 1 by means of order dated 27.06.1996 set aside the order dated 03.04.1980 and by which the entry in favour of the respondent no. 2 was expunged and then listed the reference for hearing. By the same order, it also noticed that since the land of Gaon Sabha is involved, hence, notice be issued to the Gaon Sabha concerned. Soon After, passing of the order dated 27.06.1996 on 25.07.1996, the reference proceedings were also dismissed in default. The legal position as obtained, in light of the aforesaid facts, is that the initial order by which the entries in favour of the private respondent no. 2 was expunged, was set aside and the proceedings also were dismissed for want of prosecution, hence, the entry in favour of the private respondent no. 2 continued to subsist. It is at this stage that the instant petition came to be filed in the year 2002 The record indicates that really speaking neither the Gaon Sabha was impleaded as a party by the petitioner nor the State who had received notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 made any attempt to point out these facts to the Court nor raised any objection that since at one point of time, it was adjudicated and was also reflected from the order dated 27.06.1996 that the rights of the Gaon Sabha are involved and it would be adversely impacted as the land belonged to the Gaon Sabha, however, yet no sich effort was made to protect the disputed property. The record would indicate that the private respondent no. 2 had filed a very sketchy counter affidavit dated 06.01.2004. In the said counter affidavit, it was pleaded by the private respondent no. 2 that the respondent had received lease hold rights in the land in question from the Gaon Sabha. Another issue was raised that the petitioner does not have the locus-standi to maintain the petition as the Gaon Sabha has not challenged the lease/patta of the private respondent no.2 and in light thereof the petitioner did not have a right to assail the said patta. However, what is significant to note that neither at the time of filing of the counter affidavit by the private respondent no. 2, any document of right including the lease was brought on record by the private respondent no. 2. The record would further indicate that the petitioner once again by means of a supplementary affidavit dated 24.09.2021 had filed certain orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation purporting to be under Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953 on record including the order dated 17.08.1992 and copies of the Khataunis relating to Fasli year 1353 and 1362 as well as CH Form No.-45 to indicate that the private respondent no. 2 had resorted to fraud as well as the land which was recorded as pond land has been was sought to be usurped by the private respondent no 2. Even though, the said supplementary affidavit was filed on 29.09.2021 but the private respondent no. 2 did not file any reply to controvert the averments made therein. As already stated above that this Court did not receive assistance from either the private parties or the State despite noticing that the matter was heard on few dates and yet the State did not make any effort to either get the Gaon Sabha impleaded or to even suggest as to how the pond land was being usurped and no action was taken. It is in this context when this Court examined the matter on its own, it is found that despite a categorical stand taken by the private respondent no. 2 that the land in question was given on lease to the private respondent no. 2 by the Gaon Sabha but no such document has been placed on record by any of the parties including the private respondent no. 2. There are allegations that the order dated 03.04.1980 was fraudulent as well as the fact that a reference which was made by the petitioner and one Jhagai Lal who also did not indicate their right in the property in question and despite specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mishra as to the locus-standi of the petitioner, he could not explain the same. He also could not explain under what circumstances, the reference was moved under Section 48 (3) of the Act of 1953. Be that as it may, neither the proper documents have been brought on record relating to the application for reference, nor any report which must have been called for to verify the averments made in the alleged application for reference has been placed on record. The order dated 03.04.1980 by which the entry in the name of the private respondent no. 2 was expunged also was not brought on record along with the writ petition, however, later a copy of the said order has been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit filed in the year 2021. There are allegations that the said order was an outcome of fraud. The learned counsel for the private respondent no. 2 could not dispute the fact that in case if the findings as recorded in the order dated 03.04.1980 is correct then apparently all the other pleas raised by the private respondent would fail. Significantly, this aspect has also not been explained by the learned counsel for the State. The record further reflects that the private respondent no. 2 had moved an application for recall/review of the order dated 03.04.1980. The said application for review/recall of the private respondent no. 2 was dismissed on 22.07.1989. The issue that requires further investigation was whether the order dated 03.04.1980 could have been reviewed at the behest of the private respondent no. 2. Several applications for restoration were made successively by the private respondent no. 2 and they too came to be rejected. Later, with the order dated 27.06.1996, the initial order dated 03.04.1980 was set aside. It could also not be clarified by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor by the learned counsel for the State and the private respondent no. 2 that in context of an application/reference made under the U.P. C.H. Act of 1953, how could the restoration applications be allowed by the Additional District Magistrate, Land & Revenue as shall be seen by the order which has been brought on record as Annexure no. 1. An order passed by the Consolidation Authorities can only be challenged and can be set to naught by the Consolidation Authorities itself under the Scheme of the Act. Even if a petition is dismissed in default which was instituted under the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953, its restoration can only be allowed by the Consolidation Authorities competent to do so and not by any Revenue Authority exercising power under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 or U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Prima facie from the material available on record, it appears that Plot No. 646/2 is recorded as pond land in the revenue records. In such circumstances, where none of the parties could explain the correct position and the land naturally belongs to the State and at one point of time, there is a finding that the land of the State is being fraudulently usurped, hence, this Court taking note of this fact directs the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh to hold an inquiry in respect of the Plot No. 646/2 measuring 6 Bighas situate in Village Para, Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh and to examine whether in respect of the said land any lease was executed by the Gaon Sabha in favour of the private respondent no. 2 and he shall also take note of the orders which have been brought on record by the petitioner with the instant petition including annexed with his supplementary affidavit dated 29.09.2021 and report its status as to whether the private respondent had any right in the said property as well as examine the authenticity of the order dated 22.07.1989, a reference of which is mentioned in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner by verifying it from the records drawn and maintained by the Consolidation and Revenue Authorities including the status of the property in question, entries in respect thereto including the alleged one in favour of the private respondent no. 2. He shall also inquire as to the fact that once the proceedings were pending before this Court where notices were received by the State on behalf of the Additional District Magistrate, Land Revenue why the matter was not inquired and the correct facts brought before the Court including the fact as to why the Gaon Sabha did not contest the proceedings nor the State took effective measures to protect its property, if it is so. The entire report shall be placed before this Court by 21st October, 2024 and the matter shall be listed for further hearing and then all pleas open to the parties shall be considered on its merits. A copy of this order shall also be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P. for information as well as to ensure compliance. " Thereafter, again on 23.01.2025 the Court had passed following order which reads as under: "1. This petition was listed on 21.1.2025 in the Additional Cause list at serial no.3041 and it was ordered to be listed on 23.1.2025 at 1.00 p.m. for further hearing.

2.Accordingly, the case has come up today in the Additional Cause List-I at serial no.3350.

3. Due to typographical error, the month of listing has wrongly been transcribed as February,2025 instead of January, 2025. The words "for further hearing" could also not be transcribed in the order dated 21.1.2025.

4.This court on 21.9.2024 passed a detailed order wherein it was specifically noticed that this is one of those unfortunate cases where neither the full facts had been brought on record by the petitioners and the contesting private respondents nor there was proper assistance by the respondent State.

5. The court prima facie found certain discrepancies in the order dated 21.9.2024 and the relevant part of the said order is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference :- "Prima facie from the material available on record, it appears that Plot No. 646/2 is recorded as pond land in the revenue records. In such circumstances, where none of the parties could explain the correct position and the land naturally belongs to the State and at one point of time, there is a finding that the land of the State is being fraudulently usurped, hence, this Court taking note of this fact directs the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh to hold an inquiry in respect of the Plot No. 646/2 measuring 6 Bighas situate in Village Para, Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh and to examine whether in respect of the said land any lease was executed by the Gaon Sabha in favour of the private respondent no. 2 and he shall also take note of the orders which have been brought on record by the petitioner with the instant petition including annexed with his supplementary affidavit dated 29.09.2021 and report its status as to whether the private respondent had any right in the said property as well as examine the authenticity of the order dated 22.07.1989, a reference of which is mentioned in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner by verifying it from the records drawn and maintained by the Consolidation and Revenue Authorities including the status of the property in question, entries in respect thereto including the alleged one in favour of the private respondent no. 2. He shall also inquire as to the fact that once the proceedings were pending before this Court where notices were received by the State on behalf of the Additional District Magistrate, Land Revenue why the matter was not inquired and the correct facts brought before the Court including the fact as to why the Gaon Sabha did not contest the proceedings nor the State took effective measures to protect its property, if it is so. The entire report shall be placed before this Court by 21st October, 2024 and the matter shall be listed for further hearing and then all pleas open to the parties shall be considered on its merits. A copy of this order shall also be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P. for information as well as to ensure compliance."

6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh had filed his personal affidavit dated 11.12.2024 wherein an attempt was made to try to justify the manner in which the proceedings had been held. However, what is conspicuously absent from the record is, that since the date of order dated 21.9.2024, the State has not yet woken up from its sleep and despite more than three months, the counter affidavit to the writ petition has not been filed. A copy of the written instructions has been placed on record under the signatures of District Magistrate alongwith certain documents which apparently cannot partake the nature of the counter affidavit.

7. The court had also expressed its anguish in the said order and has also raised the matter upon to the State Government to consider the matter on merits but the State till date has not filed any counter affidavit. It appears that the State is not even bothered regarding the issue involved in the case, taking away its own land by the private parties in collusion with each other.

8.This court once again on 21.11.2024 had noticed that even in the personal affidavit filed by the District Magistrate dated 19.11.2024, certain enquiry was made but the manner in which the inquiry was conducted, was not satisfactory.

9.Today again, written instructions under the signatures of the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh has been provided to the court dated 22.1.2025 wherein it has been indicated that the matter has been referred to the State Government for inquiry.

10.Having considered the aforesaid, what is most striking is the feature that even though repeated affidavits and instructions are being placed on record by the State under the signatures of responsible officers such as the District Magistrate but the fact remains that no counter affidavit has been filed till date nor the State has placed its stand on record even though the petition is of the year 2002 and 22 years have lapsed.

11.Learned Standing Counsel submits that he may be granted a further week's time so that the counter affidavit can be filed but this lacsidical attitude of the State only compounds the problem and the fact that stares at the face is complete laxity on behalf of the respondent State to context the proceedings.

12. However, as a last resort, a week's further time is granted to the State to file its counter affidavit subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- as cost to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, within the aforesaid period of one week.

13. List this case again on 30.1.2025. In case if the counter affidavit is not filed, the matter shall be heard in its absence.

14. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P., for information and necessary action. " In furtherance thereof, learned Standing counsel had filed counter affidavit of Sri Onkar Sharan Singh Consolidation Officer Sadar-II Pratapgarh wherein it has been stated by him that the orders which had been passed earlier by the D.D.C they had been set aside by means of the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the D.D.C Pratapgarh and a copy of the said order has been brought on record as part of Annexure-6 with the counter filed. It has also been pointed out that after earlier orders dated 27.06.1996 and 25.07.1996 has been set aside, the initial order dated 03.04.1980 has been maintained. The parties have been given opportunity to present their submissions and the matter is being listed before competent court for consideration on merits. Considering the aforesaid submissions the issue in so far as the petitioner is concerned he does not have any locus which has already been noticed by the Court while passing a detailed order dated 21.09.2024. As of today, there is no challenge to the order which has been passed by the D.D.C dated 11.12.2024. In light of the above, the petition at this stage, has lost its efficacy as the earlier order dated 03.04.1980 has been maintained. Accordingly, considering the earlier orders and the status of the proceedings which have been brought on record by the learned Standing counsel by filing counter affidavit, no further orders are required to be passed in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in light of the earlier orders dated 21.09.2024 and in view of the order passed today noticing the order of the D.D.C dated 11.12.2024. Order Date :- 14.2.2025/Harshita HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench