JUDGMENT

Jayant Banerji, J.

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The respondent no.5-Gaon Sabha is represented by Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

"1. issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj in Revision No. REV/2909/2022/Gorakhpur, Computerized Case No. AL202220531002909 (Ram Pati v. State of U.P. and others) under section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and also further prayed to dismiss the appeal No. C202205000001486 (Gaon Sabha v. Rampati and others) now pending before the respondent no.2 after remand by the Board of Revenue (Annexure No. 125 and 12 to this writ petition respectively)."

3. It appears from perusal of the writ petition that the petitioner filed a suit under Section 229 -B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 for declaration that he be declared as Bhumidhar with non-transferable right in respect of the property in question which is plot No. 228 area 0.093 hectare claiming that he is a member of scheduled caste. By an order dated 23.5.1999, the Sub Divisional Officer, Basgaon, district Gorakhpur directed that the name of the petitioner/plaintiff be recorded as a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights and the revenue record be accordingly amended. It is stated that some villagers, who were not parties to the case, filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, but the appeal was dismissed in default on 13.3.2003 and against which no recall application was filed by the Gaon Sabha nor any appeal or revision was filed before the competent court. It is stated that thereafter, on 31.3.2003, the Sub Divisional Officer passed an order declaring the petitioner to be Bhumidhar with transferable rights. It is stated that the petitioner has fulfilled the criteria of sub-section (4F) of Section 122 -B of the Act, 1950. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioner is cultivating the said plot, but after 15 years, a third person, namely, Rakesh Yadav and others filed an application dated 22.12.2014 before the Sub-Divisional Officer against the order dated 23.5.1999 without any delay condonation application and by order dated 9.3.2015, the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the order dated 23.5.1999 without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.2015, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, who by order dated 19.10.2015 set aside the order dated 9.3.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and remanded the matter back for hearing. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioner moved an application dated 21.12.2015 before the Sub Divisional Officer for getting his name recorded in the revenue record, but the application was rejected on 16.1.2017, against which the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 51705 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 7.11.2017 directing the respondent no.4 therein to decide the application dated 22.12.2014 after affording opportunity of hearing and considering the relevant provisions of Section 122 -B(4-F) of the Act, 1950. It is stated that pursuant to order of this Court dated 7.11.2017 passed in the said writ petition, the order dated 23.5.1999 passed in favour of the petitioner was affirmed by means of an order dated 17.3.2020. It is stated that after more than two and half years, the Gaon Sabha