JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Vivek Raj Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Akshat Kumar, Shantanu Sharma, Kunwar Naresh Vardhan Singh, Utkarsh Singh, Sukrit Singh and Siddhartha Misra on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Sri Satish Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prem Singh on behalf of the State.

2. The facts in the present case demonstrate a very sorry state of affairs about the proceedings undertaken by the revenue authorities in dealing with the exercise of statutory power to determine the right and title of the property, their lack of sensitivity and deliberate disregard for the rule of law and the directions of the Courts, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3. In the instant case suo moto proceedings were initiated under Section 38 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code for correction of revenue records which was unilaterally corrected on 10.2.2025 without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who is the recorded tenure holder of the said land, declaring the said land to be Gaon sabha land and subsequently a revenue team was constituted to demolish the said structure. It has been submitted that the proceedings for demolition had also taken place on24.3.2025.

4. The factual aspect of this case has been duly considered by this Court on a previous occasion, and for the sake of convenience, the order dated 3.12.2025 is quoted as under:-

"1. Heard Sri Vivek Raj Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Akshat Kumar on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of State-respondent No.s 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.

2. An oral request has been made on behalf of the petitioner to make Sub District Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Sadar, District Raebareli as a party in the memo of the petition.

3. The oral request is allowed. The petitioner is directed to make Sub District Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Sadar, District Raebareli as a party in the memo of the petition. during course of the day.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to the property situated at gata No.431 Kha measuring 0.7740 hectare situated in Village -Devanandpur, Pargana Tehsil and District Rae Bareli. It has been submitted that with regard to the said land one Santdeen had filed a suit for declaration under Section 229 B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act before Parganadhikari, Sadar, District Raebareli and the suit was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.1975. It is on the basis of the said judgment and decree dated 18.3.1975 that name of Santdeen was recorded in the revenue records and thereafter his son, namely, Ratan Lal and his brothers became the owners of the land whose names were also recorded in the revenue records.

5. The petitioner and her sister purchased the said land by a registered sale deed from Ratan Lal son of Santdeen on 24.2.2021 and the petitioner and her sister became owner of a part of the said plot No.431 Kha measuring an area of 3036 square meters. The petitioner and her sister thereafter also moved an application under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code and their names have been mutated in the revenue records by means of order dated 24.2.2021 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Raebareli. It has been stated that the petitioner and her sister have been in possession of the said land when on 24.3.2025 opposite party No.s 4, 5 and 6 came with a JCB machine and demolished the structure that has been raised by the petitioner. It is only then that the petitioner came to know about the impugned order dated 10.2.2025 passed by opposite party No.4 in exercise of the powers under Section 38 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code whereby the said land has also been handed over to GST Department.

6. It has been submitted that despite the fact that petitioner's name was entered into the revenue records neither has she been made a party in the proceedings under Section 38 (5) nor any notice has been given to her and in a most illegal and arbitrary manner the resp