Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shri Subhash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri M. E. Khan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record as well as original record which has been produced before this Court today by the District Magistrate, Lucknow and SD.M., Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.8.2012 passed by Up-Ziladhikari/Assistant Collector-First Class-Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow in a proceeding under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and 7.1.2013 passed by opposite party No. 3.

2. Facts in brief as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the controversy involved in the present case relates to plot No. 1272 (new No. 833) area 6 Bighas 4 Biswa and 5 Biswansi situated in Village-Mandiyaon, Pargana-Mahona, Tehsil-Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow (herein after referred to land in dispute).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that land in dispute has been recorded in the name of the petitioner through his predecessors Pt. Debi Prasad, Pt. Ayodhya Prasad and Pt. Govind Prasad, sons of Pt. Mansa Deen Shukla, r/o Yahiya Ganj, Lucknow, the then Zamindars of Mandiyaon village, since before 1333 Fasli i.e. 1926 A.D. On the said land, there were 38 trees of Neem, Guavava, Mango, Jamun, Mahua etc.

In a consolidation proceedings under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Case No. 103 registered before the consolidation officer, Malihabad, who passed an order dated 21.10.1963 that in pursuance to the same, land in dispute was recorded in the name of Ram Krishan Mishra. Although, the said order was passed in a proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of U. P. C. H. Act but due to clerical mistake, it has been mentioned that the same is passed under Section 10 of the C. H. Act, but due to said fact, no benefit can be derive by the respondent. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that he has applied for the certified copy of the order of Case No. 103, but the same was not available to him on the ground that on 18.8.1994, the record of the case was weeded out. However, in respect to weeding out of case No. 103 filed before the Consolidation Officer, the said facts were not denied by the respondent in their supplementary counter-affidavit.

4. Lastly, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that later on, land in question comes within the purview of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the notification dated 3.2.1987 as contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that unsigned application titled as Public Interest Litigation dated 13.9.2007 was moved before the opposite party No. 2/Assistant Collector, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow, on the basis of the same, a proceeding under Section 33/39 was initiated in which a report was submitted by Regional Lekhpal.

6. Thereafter, without providing any opportunity to the petitioner, opposite party No. 2 had passed an order dated 5.3.2008 holding therein that land in question indicates that name of the petitioner be expunged from the revenue record and it shall be recorded as pond. When the said facts came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he moved an application for recall of the said order on 6.5.2009 but no heed paid by the opposite party No. 2. So, for redressal of his grievances, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6230 (MS) of 2011, disposed of by order dated 18.10.2011, relevant portion is quoted herein below :

“In this view of the matter, with the consent of parties’ counsel, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that the pending application dated 6.5.2009 moved by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 5.3.2008 passed in Case No. 30/08 under Section 33/39 U.P. Land Revenue Act shall