ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Harish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is being heard and disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.

3. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 15.4.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 and may further be pleased to allow the application dated 09.05.2019 filed by the petitioners under section 152 C.P.C. under the strength of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Surajbhan Sharma vs. State of U.P.

II. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent concern not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in question and further not to alter the status of the land or transfer the same to any other agency.

III. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem, just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

IV. Issue the award cost of this petition petitioner."

4. Brief facts of the case are that one, Kudia, Harsharan & Kiran sons of Girohi @ Girbar were the bhumidhar of the Khasra No.197, Area 6-8-0, situated in Village-Sorkha, Zahidabad, Pargana & Tahsil-Dadari, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. Kiran son of Girohi has sold his 1/3 share through registered sale deed dated 3.6.1966 in favour of father of petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3, namely, Mahaveer, Suresh and Jatan as well as father of petitioner nos.5 & 6, who expired later on. Petitioners' father or petitioners have never executed any sale deed in favour of Pragatisheel Cooperative Society about the land in dispute. Petitioners came to know that the plot in dispute have been vested into the State in the proceeding under Section 154 (2)/167 (2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. One, Jagmal @ Jagram, who was co-sharer of the plot in dispute never sold his share of the aforementioned plot in dispute at any point of time but by producing an imposter registered sale deed dated 5.1.1983/22.1.1983 had allegedly been executed in favour of Pragatisheel Cooperative Society about his 1/9 share vide sale deed dated 5.1.1983/22.1.1983. Petitioner instituted a civil suit being O.S. No.18 of 2015 to declare the sale deed dated 5.1.1983/22.1.1983 as null and void. In the aforementioned suit, State of U.P./Collector was impleaded as defendant no.2. Civil Court vide judgment dated 8.10.2018 decreed the suit and cancelled the sale deed dated 5.1.1983/22.1.1983. The judgment and decree dated 8.10.2018 attained finality, accordingly, petitioners filed an application No.7 of 2019, under Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code dated 9.5.2019 against the order dated 7.4.1993. Respondent no.2 without considering the case setup by the petitioners in their application under Section 152 of C.P.C. has rejected the same as not maintainable vide order dated 15.4.2023, hence this writ petition to set aside the order dated 15.4.2023 passed by respondent no.2 and allowed the application dated 9.5.2019 filed by the petitioners under Section 152 of C.P.C. in the light of the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.58827 of 2011 (Surajbhan Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Others) decided on 21.10.2011 and Writ-C No.29898 of 2014 (Sharma Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) decided on 28.5.2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' father/petitoiners have not executed any sale deed in respect to the plot in question, as such, the property could not be vested in the State-Government. He further submitted that even the sale deed alleged to be executed on 5.1.1983 in respect to the plot in question that has been cancelled by the civil Court in Civil Suit No.18 of 2015 in which State of U.P. through Collector, Gautam Buddh Nagar was party, as s