JUDGMENT

Jayant Banerji, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri O.P. Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5-Gaon Sabha.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.2022 passed by Respondent no. 2 in Second Appeal No. 365 of 2022, Computer case no. ME202211000000365; Smt. Sunita v. State, the Impugned Judgment and order dated 26.11.2021 passed by respondent no. 3 in Appeal No. 02759 of 2018, Computer Case no. C201811000002759; Smt. Sunita v. Gram Sabha and others as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2018, passed by Respondent no. 4, in original title No. 06052 of 2017, Computer case No. T201711520106052; Smt. Sunita v. State arising out of the proceedings under Section 229B/122B (4F) of Uttar State Pradesh Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

(ii) Issue any other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award the cost of the writ petition to the writ petitioner."

3. Pursuant to the previous order dated 14.02.2023, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4 and another counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not propose to file a rejoinder affidavit.

4. It appears that a suit was filed by the petitioner under Section 229 -B read with Section 122 -B(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 on 02.06.2009. Written statement dated 30.03.2016 was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha as well as the State of U.P.

5. In the plaint, the petitioner sought a declaration on the basis that she was in continuous possession for 18 years over the plot in question and she was constantly applying for mutation of her name in the revenue records, but the same was not being done. Claiming herself to be entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4F) of Section 122 -B of the Act, 1950, the suit was filed. In the written statement, apart from denying the contents of the plaint, objections were raised regarding bar of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; disputing the entitlement of the petitioner; and, for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 CPC.

6. By an order dated 23.04.2018 passed in Case No.06052 of 2017, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Meerut Sadar dismissed the suit holding that after enforcement of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, there is no provision pari materia to sub-section (4F) of Section 122 -B of the Act, 1950 in the Code, 2006 and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. It was further observed that the petitioner was merely seeking adjournments for the period of 8 years without taking any interest in the proceedings after filing of the suit.

7. Against the aforesaid order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut which came to be dismissed by the order dated 26.11.2021 while affirming the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Court of the Commissioner held that there is no provision under the Code, 2006 for staking a claim on the property of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Gaon Sabha or the Nagar Nigam by adverse possession, as provided under sub-section (4F) of Section 122 -B of the Act, 1950. The second appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Board o