JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhatia, J.

1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner even in the revised list. Learned Standing Counsel or the State is present.

2. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 13.6.2013 and 30.10.2012, passed by respondent nos. 2 and 4 respectively, arising out of suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

3. The facts of the case are as follows:

4. The petitioner's father, Ratan Singh, resident of Village Jhalu, Pargana-Daranagar, Tehsil and District Bijnor was the Seerdar of certain land situated in the village but, due to the mistake of the revenue authorities, the name was incorporated as Asami in revenue records. The father of the petitioner, aggrieved against the said wrong recording in the revenue records, filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bijnor, which was numbered as Case No. 25/1984 (Ratan Singh and others vs. Land Management Committee). In the said suit, notices were issued to the affected parties including the Land Management Committee who contested the said proceedings and, after hearing the parties, three issues were framed and were decided in favour of the petitioner's father vide order dated 12.7.1984 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). It is stated that after the death of the father of the petitioner the name of the petitioner and his brother were duly recorded in the revenue records. It is further stated that the order dated 12.7.1984 had attained the finality, as the same was not challenged anywhere. The petitioner further states that his ancestor and now the petitioner and his brother are in possession of the land in question and in consolidation proceedings held in the village chaks have been allotted to them and under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the consolidation proceedings in the village have come to an end. It is further stated that in an order dated 08.9.2009 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47176 of 2009 (Deena Nath vs. State of U.P. and others) this Court directed the Collector to reopen all the cases in which Gram Sabha property was mutated in the name of private persons or in the cases where there is huge delay in mutation in the revenue records may be reopened suo-motu by the Collector. The relevant directions in the case of Deena Nath vs. State of U.P. and others are as under:

“The experience of the Court is that during consolidation proceedings, consolidation Authorities/Officers liberally donate the Gaon Sabha properties to influential/resourceful persons by passing such orders as has been passed in the instant case.

Accordingly, all the Collectors of all the Districts in the State are directed to reopen such cases where names of private persons are entered in revenue records on the basis of old pattas, or adverse possession over Gaon Sabha land and correct the illegality by taking suo motu action. However, no orders shall be set aside without issuing notice and hearing affected persons. If notice through registered post is not served then it may be served through publication in the newspaper also. If it is found that some Consolidation Officer, or SOC or DDC has done similar thing, then the action must be proposed to be taken against him also.”

5. The petitioner avers that his case was not covered by either of the two conditions specified in the case of Deena Nath (supra), however, the Tehsildar, Bijnor submitted an ex parte report on 12.3.2011 against the petitioner. It is further stated that on 14.3.2011 solely on the basis of the ex parte report submitted by the Tehsildar on 12.3.2011, the respondent no. 3 proceeded to pass an order staying the earlier order dated 12.7.1984. The petitioner received notice in pursuance of the order dated 14.3.2011 and the petitioner and his brother submitted their objections before the respondent no. 4 on 09.8.2012.

6. It is argued that the respondent no. 4, i.e. the State