JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Upendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner through its Mahant/Savarkar Prem Giri Maharaj challenging the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "respondent no.2").

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the State Respondents regarding the maintainability of this petition challenging an order resuming land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. It has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the order dated 30.09.2019 has been issued in the exercise of powers given to the State Government under Section 59(4) c of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the code"). By this order the State Government has exercised its power to resume land that was initially entrusted to the Gaon Sabha from the date of vesting, for a public purpose that is for establishment of a medical college in the district Lakhimpur Kheri. The petitioner is not the recorded tenure holder of the land in question and therefore has no locus to challenge the order dated 30.09.2019. The Gaon Sabha has not come to Court to challenge the order dated 30.09.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner however has emphasised that if this Court is apprised of the facts leading to the order of resumption being passed, it will be convinced that the action of the State Respondents smacks of arbitrariness and violation of principles of natural justice and has caused grave injustice to the petitioner.

4. Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that the petitioner is "aggrieved person” and his writ petition cannot be thrown out on the ground of locus standi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has gone on to argue that the petitioner Devasthan owned several plots of land in village Saidapur bhau, namely, old plot no. 1522, 1523 and 1524 wherein a temple, a well, several Samadhis, Yagya Shala, Gaushala and Ashram have been in existence for a long time. Plot no.1523 (new plot no. 755) and plot no.1524 (new plot no.756) are recorded in the name of Mandir Shri Thakurji Devsthan Kuti Saidapur bhau, Savarkar Mathura Das alias Taapsee Babaji, and there is no dispute regarding the same. However, there is an adjoining plot, Plot no. 1522 in which a dispute has arisen as the State Government through the respondent no. 2 has resumed the property in question without following the principles of natural justice and without following the procedure prescribed under the law.

5. Village Saidapur Bhau was notified for consolidation operations on 11.09.1965. The predecessor in interest of the current Sarvarakar Prem Giri Maharaj, had filed objections before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in Case No.808 alleging that the plot no. 1522, ad-measuring 27.27 acres, had been wrongly recorded in the revenue records as Jungal Jharee. The Assistant Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of Mathura Das alias Taapsee Baba and directed the plot in question to be recorded in the name of the petitioner through an order dated 15.12.1967. It was given effect to in C.H. Form 11, and thereafter, the entry was also made in C.H. Form 41 and 45. The Consolidation operations came to an end and a notification under Section 52 was issued on 25.07.1970. The Khatauni prepared during consolidation operations showed the said plot of land as a new plot no.754 Min. ad-measuring 26.91 acres in the name of Devsthan and the remaining land of the plot ad-measuring 0.36 decimal, was recorded as Banjar that is belonging to the Gram Sabha.

6. All of a sudden the petitioner came to know from the Pradhan of the village concerned that the land of plot no.754 Min. is being proposed to be used for construction of a medical college.