JUDGMENT

Jayant Banerji, J.

Heard Sri S.C. Varma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri O.P. Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri R.B. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 9.

2. As is evident from the order dated 14.7.2021, Sri K.P. Verma, learned counsel represents respondent no.4, however, despite the list being revised, he has not appeared.

3. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 8.4.2021, passed by the Board of Revenue and the order dated 30.6.2016, passed by the respondent no.2, Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadohi.

4. It is noticed that despite time being granted to the Standing Counsel, appearing for the State and to the counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha, no counter affidavit has been filed.

5. It is stated in the writ petition that with respect to Plot No.80, area 0-18-1 bighas and Plot No.81 area 0-15-3 bighas situate in Mauja Rudrapur Taluka Chauthar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bhadohi, the entry was in the name of the father of the petitioners and after their father's death, the names of the petitioners have continued uninterruptedly for for 44 years corresponding to the calendar years 1961 to 2006. It is stated that the petitioners are recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights. It is stated that the plots in dispute are situated near the by-pass road and thus have high commercial value and, therefore, the private respondents in order to grab this property filed proceedings under Sections 33 /39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 seeking to get the names of the petitioners expunged from the revenue records. By the order dated 30.06.2016, the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the application for correction of the records and directed the names of the petitioners to be expunged from over Plot Nos.80 and 81 of Khata No.24.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are recorded Bhumidhar with transferable rights in respect of, inter alia, plot nos. 80M. and 81 having an area 0.1901 hectares and 0.1920 hectare. It is contended that on the basis of proceedings initiated by the private respondents under the provisions of Section 33 /39 of the Land Revenue Act, the long standing entry existing in favour of the petitioners over the land in dispute, was directed to be struck off and the name of respondents were directed to be incorporated therein by means of an order dated 30.6.2016. It is contended that such a reversal of long standing entry cannot be undertaken in summary proceedings, particularly in view of the fact that a suit was filed by the private respondents under the provisions of Section 229 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 seeking declaration of their title in respect of the plots in dispute. It is stated that the Sub Divisional Officer has gone into merits of the entitlement of the petitioners over the property in dispute in summary proceedings which could not have been done. It is stated that title was derived by the petitioners' father with respect to the disputed plots, and by the respondent no.3 with respect to the other plots through registered lease-deeds/sale-deeds by the same Zamindar in 1959 since the Zamindari was not abolished in that area at that point of time. It is stated that instrument was executed in favour of the private respondents with respect to other plots with which the petitioners have no concern. On the basis of the registered instr