JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Chief Standing Counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed an application along-with an affidavit for withdrawal of the writ petition whereas the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has filed a short counter-affidavit which are taken on record.

3. The instant petition had been preferred with the prayer that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code said to have been pending before the opposite party No. 2 may be decided expeditiously.

4. To put the matter in a perspective, this Court had passed an order dated 24.11.2020 which reads as under:-

"Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional -Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

The instant petition had been preferred with the prayer that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code said to have been pending before the opposite party No. 2 may be decided expeditiously.

The petitioner in Paragraph-11 had specifically stated that on the last, date fixed was 7.3.2020 and thereafter no date has been fixed despite the fact that the Courts have started functioning after the lock-down owing to COVID-19 Pandemic. Significantly, the contents of Paras-1 to 14 of the petition have been sworn to be true on personal knowledge of the petitioner Shri Matapher Yadav, who has filed his own affidavit, who is identified by Shri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner..

It is in view of the aforesaid statement, this Court by means of the order dated 10.11.2020 had passed the following order, which reads as under:-

"Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of opposite parties have been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel.

The petitioner has instituted the above petition seeking expedition of his pending case 0439 of 2019 and subsequently provided new number as T20190471014391 (Matapher v. Ram Harkh) (before the opposite party No. 2. In paragraph 11 of the petition, it has been pleaded by the petitioner that after 7.3.2020 no date has been provided to the petitioner nor his case is being decided despite the fact that the Courts have started functioning after the lock-down on account of the Covid-19 pandemic.

It is extremely surprising to note that no date has been fixed after 7.3.2020. "The proceedings before the opposite party No. 2 are judicial in nature and therefore it is not expected that no date would be fixed, nevertheless before passing any order, it would be expedient to ascertain the veracity of the aforesaid submission.

The learned Standing Counsel shall seek instructions in respect of the aforesaid paragraph 11 of the writ petition and shall inform the Court what is the status of the proceedings and whether after 7.3.2020 any date has been fixed or not and if so for what purpose.

List/put up this matter on 24.11.2019, as fresh."

Today, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that he has received instructions in writing relating to the status of the proceedings which is quite alarming and disturbing. It has been submitted that no proceedings are pending before the opposite party No. 2 inasmuch as on 13.1.2020, the proceedings already stood dismissed in default. Thereafter, the petitioner has not filed any application for restoration/recall of the said order coupled with the fact that the alleged statements which have been annexed alongwith the petition as Annexure No. 4 which includes the statements of the petitioner himself, one Shri Devtadeen Yadav and Shiv Chandra Kashyap as well as the statements of Shri Sushil Kumar Ojha, who is said to be Halka Lekhpal at hand are all fabricated and do not find place on the record of the opposite party No. 2.

In view of the instructions received and as conveyed by th