JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tripathi and Mr. H.N. Pandey, Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 6.

2. The brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act was initiated against the petitioner in respect to plot No.314 area 1.28 acre on the basis of report of lekhpal that petitioner is in illegal possession of Gaon Sabha land. Petitioner filed his objection stating that petitioner belongs to scheduled caste community and he is in possession of disputed plot since before 30.06.1975 and having land less than one (1) acre as such petitioner is entitled to be recorded as sirdar. Lekhapl was examined before the Court and stated that petitioner belongs to scheduled caste community, his possession is since June 1976. Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 19.04.1977 on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on the record of the case has declared the petitioner as sirdar of the plot in dispute. A restoration application without any prayer for condonation of delay has been filed by lekhpal on 25.05.1977 to recall the order dated 19.04.1977. The Sub-divisional officer vide his order dated 12.10.1977 allowed the restoration application setting aside the order dated 19.04.1977 and sent the record before Tehsildar for necessary action. Petitioner challenged the order dated 12.10.1977 before the Commissioner through revision and Additional Commissioner recommended the revision before Board of Revenue through reference vide order dated 19.09.1978 that revision be allowed on the ground the Lekhpal in his individual capacity has no right to file restoration application and Sub-Divisional officer without hearing the petitioner has set aside the order dated 19.04.1977, but board of revenue vide order dated 10.07.1985 dismissed the revision of petitioner and maintained the order of trial court date 12.10.1977. Hence this writ petition.

3. This court while entertaining the writ petition has passed the following interim order dated 12.11.1987:-

"Mr. K.B. Garg, learned counsel for the gaon sabha prays for and is granted two months' time for filing a counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within another one month. List the petition for admission on 08.03.1988.

Until further orders of this Court, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute."

4. On 04.07.1988 writ petition was admitted and following interim order was passed:-

"Issue notice.

Until further orders of this Court, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 12.11.1987/ 04.07.1988 Standing Counsel filed counter affidavit along with stay vacation application on 09.05.2012 which was heard and disposed of vide order dated 24.07.2012, the order runs as follows:-

"This is a stay vacation application filed on behalf of respondents no. 3 and 5 along with counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to file rejoinder affidavit.

According to learned Standing Counsel under the interim orders dated 04.07.1988 and 12.11.1987 the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute has been stayed which requires to be vacated in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit to the effect that although the Tehsildar had recommended that the petitioner would be entitled and be given benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act but the Lekhpal was competent to file a restoration application against the said order of the Tehsildar since the proceedings under Section 122-B were initiated on the report of the Lekhpal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the impugned order passed in Reference No. 208 of 1978-79 (Harbar Chamar Vs. Board of Revenue and others) the revisional court has illegally held that the Lekhpal could file an application to recall the order dated 30.3.197