Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—These three writ petitions were nominated to me by Hon’ble the Chief Justice after being released by two Hon’ble Judges.

2. I heard the matter for the first time on 24.1.2008 as fresh and appointed an advocate of this Court to make spot inspection and submit report alongwith map. Commissioner Sri S.P. Misra, Advocate inspected the spot and submitted the report. Thereafter matters were heard on 21st and 22nd February, 2008 and judgment was reserved on 22.2.2003 by the following order passed in the first writ petition :

“Heard Sri B.B. Paul, Sri R.K. Ojha and Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the three writ petitions, Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the Pollution Board-respondent in one of the writ petitions, Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for main contesting respondent in all the three writ petitions assisted by Sri Anupam Kulshrestha. Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has also been heard on behalf of State. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for Gaon Sabha, had been called yesterday (arguments in this case started yesterday and concluded today). Sri V.K. Singh stated that at present, at none of the four disputed plots, i.e. 37, 38, 39 and 43, name of Gaon Sabha is recorded. However, he stated that he had been informed that some cases under Sections 33/39 of Land Revenue Act were pending. However, learned Counsel could not give any details of the said cases.

Learned Counsel for Allahabad Development Authority has also been heard.

Judgment reserved.

Put up for delivery of Judgment on 26.2.2008.

Registrar General is directed to at once summon the file of Revision No. 137 of 2007-08 from the Board of Revenue, Allahabad and attach with the file of this writ petition.

Sri R.N. Singh, learned senior Counsel, categorically stated that his client had absolutely no intention of encroaching upon any part of the Kharnja shown in the Commissioner’s map. Sri Anupam Kulshreshta, the other learned Counsel, stated that in case his client intends to make any constructions, then permission from Pollution Board will be sought. However, learned Counsel further added that for constructing boundary wall, no permission is required.

Interim order earlier granted in these writ petitions shall remain in operation till the delivery of the judgment.”

3. The main contesting respondent in these writ petitions is Kriya Yog Satsang Samiti Anusandhan Sansthan Allahabad, through its Secretary (hereinafter referred to as “Kriya Yog Sansthan”). The dispute relates to four plots viz. plot Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 43. It appears that Kriya Yog Sansthan, contesting respondent, filed some application before the Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad stating therein that it was recorded Bhumidhar of plot No. 38, 39 and 43, however, some people were trying to interfere in its possession and preventing from making constructions. The Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad passed an order on 27.3.2002 recording that the Deputy Collector stated that the land was of Gaon Sabha, however, no clear report in that regard was filed by Lekhpal or Kanungo and even though there were several complaints in that regard but no inquiry was made. The Chief Revenue Officer opined that without any inquiry and merely on the basis of suspicion constructions could not be stopped and in case applicant (Kriya Yog Sansthan, the contesting respondent in these writ petitions) was making construction on its Bhumidhari land then the Deputy Collector had no right to stop that. In the operative portion it was mentioned that in case construction was being made by the Kriya Yog Sansthan in its land comprised in plot Nos. 38, 39 and 43 which had no concern with Gaon Sabha, then there was no justification to stop the said construction. It was further observed.that in case the position was otherwise, then the Deputy Collector after inquiry should submit clear report before the Chief Revenue Officer so that fur