IMPORTANT POINT
The court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to protect long-held possession despite potential legal invalidity of prior resolutions.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. In the present case, a piece of land was being part of two resolutions for allotment of Patta under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which has created a controversy and matter is reached upto this Court.

2. First resolution was adopted on 11.09.1972 and number of beneficiaries were 58. It was challenged before Additional Collector, however, rejected by order dated 10.09.1973. Surprisingly, despite this writ petition is pending for last more than three decades, copy of same was not placed on record.

3. Said order was challenged before Commissioner and a reference dated 10.06.1974 was prepared, however, copy of same is also not on record. Said reference was accepted by Board of Revenue vide order dated 29.04.1977 and revision was dismissed. Copy of order was placed on record by way of filing a supplementary affidavit and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter:

“This is a revision petition against the order dated 10.09.1973 passed by Additional Collector, Saharanpur, in a case u/s 198(2) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.

2. No objection has been filed against the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner. I have gone through the record. Agreeing with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner, I dismiss the revision.”

4. During pendency of above revision, said land was again become a subject matter of a subsequent resolution dated 28.12.1975 and number of beneficiaries were 90. Said resolution was challenged, however, except that some of the beneficiaries were removed from list on the ground that they were not qualified, rest of resolution was upheld vide order dated 30.03.1978. Surprisingly, earlier resolution dated 11.09.1972 as well as proceedings referred above which reached till Board of Revenue, were not even referred in said order.

5. Above referred order dated 30.03.1978 was challenged and a reference dated 15.07.1981 was made. Relevant part of the order dated 30.03.1978 and reference dated 15.07.1981 is reproduced hereinafter:

Relevant part of order dated 30.03.1978:

Relevant part of order dated 15.07.1981:

6. Thereafter, Board of Revenue accepted the reference and revision was allowed vide order dated 24.04.1992 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

7. Aforesaid orders are challenged before this Court at the behest of petitioners, i.e., as many as 64 beneficiaries of subsequent resolution.

8. This Court vide order dated 03.02.1993 directed that writ petitioners will not be dispossessed from land in dispute in pursuance of impugned order.

9. Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that earlier resolution dated 11.09.1972 was void ab initio since it was neither approved nor it was acted upon, whereas proceedings arising out of subsequent resolution dated 28.12.1975 were not only with prior approval but it was acted upon so much as that allotted land was handed over to its beneficiaries, i.e. atleast to the petitioners.

10. Learned counsel for petitioners further referred few paragraphs of counter affidavit filed by State-Respondents that it was admitted that a meeting of Land Management Committee of concerned Gaon Sabha was conducted on 11.09.1972 but it was not approved. Learned counsel also submitted that equity is in favour of petitioners as their possession is protected since 1975 and even by this Court for last more than three decades.

11. Per contra, Sri Rajeev Sisodia as well as Sri Girish Chandra Shukla, Advocates for contesting-respondents, submitted that once the earlier resolution dated 11.09.1972 was got confirmed upto Board of Revenue, Gaon Sabha was not empowered to put the said land for the purpose of allotment of Patta again and he referred relevant paragraphs of impugned orders dated 15.07.1981 and 24.09.1992, which were passed on same reasons. They further submitted that question of equity will rise only if subsequent resolution dated 28.12.1975 was legally adopted, however, the facts as