JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Ramesh Pundir, counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent, Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava, counsel for respondent No.4-Gram Sabha and Mr. Anurag Dubey, Counsel for respondent No.5.

2. The brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 33 /39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated at the complaint of respondent No.5 filed on 21.07.2011 to record plot No. 297/0.87 Acre as pond, the same was registered as Case No.5 of 2011-12 (Ashok Kumar v. State) under Section-33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act with respect to the plot No.297/0.87 acre. Petitioner is claiming himself to be in possession of plot No.297 since the time of his ancestor as such petitioner filed his impleadment application in the case under Section 33 /39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. In the proceeding under Section 33 /39 of U.P Land Revenue Act, two reports were submitted by revenue authorities to the effect that plot No.297/0.87 acre is recorded as Navin Parti. Up-Zila Adhikari without considering the report of revenue inspector passed the order dated 23.08.2012 to record the plot No.297/0.87 acre as pond after expunging the entry of Navin Parti and ordered for ejectment of petitioner's father and their co-sharer. Petitioner alleged that petitioner's impleadment application was decided after passing of final order dated 23.08.2012 in the back date. The order dated 23.08.2012 was challenged by petitioner in Revision before Commissioner under Section-219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner vide order dated 21.07.2022 hence this writ petition for the following relief:-

"(A) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.08.2012 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) passed by the UP Ziladhikari Bhogaon, Mainpuri in Case No.5 of 2011-12, (Ashok Kumar v. State) under Section 33/39 of Land Reform Act and order dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Agra Mandal, Agra in Case No.163 of 2012-13, computerized Case No C2012010000652 (Anurag Pandey v. State), under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act, 1901."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Consolidation- record reveals that plot in dispute was reserved as abadi and report of revenue inspector reveal that plot in dispute is Navin Parti as such the impugned order passed for recording the plot in dispute as pond is wholly illegal. He further submitted that petitioner is in possession of plot in dispute since the time of their ancestor as such dispossession cannot be ordered in the proceeding under Section 33 /39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act as such, the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the proceeding under Section 33 /39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, impugned order dated 23.08.2012 for correcting the entry as well as for ejectment of unauthorized occupant has been passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submitted that revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed without considering the issues raised by the petitioner in accordance with law. He further submitted that petitioner's predecessor in-interest were in possession of the plot in dispute since long. He further submitted that in summary proceeding under Section- 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, ejectment of the petitioner cannot be ordered.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that order has been passed against him after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. He further submitted that land in dispute is gaon sabha land, as such petitioner has no right in respect to the plot in dispute whether it is a pond or navin parti.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute abo