The Court emphasized the necessity of addressing illegal land appropriation and safeguarding public property from misappropriation.

1. Delay condoned. Shri. Ramroop, the then Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Dattipur violated the trust reposed in him by the public and manipulated allotment of two parcels of land to his own daughter - in - law, Smt. Kalawati Devi (mother of the petitioner herein). After 29 years, the Consolidation Officer, Gianpur passed an order dated 12-2-1997 for recording the name of Smt. Kalawati Devi in the revenue records. For this purpose, he relied upon the statement made by Shri. Ramroop.

2. Fortunately for the public and unfortunately for Smt. Kalawati Devi, Respondent 3, Murali Dhar, who is also a resident of Village Dattipur, took up the matter before the higher authorities and succeeded in convincing the Collector, Bhadohi that the issue of allotment of land by the Gaon Sabha headed by Ramroop needs a detailed inquiry.

3. The Collector accepted the prayer made by Respondent 3 for transfer of the case and passed an order dated 26-8-2009, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
"Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused file. The learned counsel for applicant has contended that under R.65(1 - A) of the Consolidation Rules, District Deputy Director, Consolidation / Collector has got the jurisdiction to call for the file from the Court of Deputy Director, Consolidation and disposed of the same by transferring to some other court for disposal to get the same disposed of itself.
List of the orders of the Consolidation Officer passed in the district on the land of Gram Sabha on the basis of forged and fabricated leases in the referred case in which Plot No. 872, area 3100 situated in this village is recorded usar in the name of Kalawati Devi who happens to be mother of Dina Nath, from which it becomes evident that the case relates to the grabbing land of Gram Sabha. Restoration happens to be a separate proceedings, in which separate order is desired."

4. The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector in CMWP No. 47176 of 2009 mainly on the ground that without setting aside the order dated 15-6-2009, the Collector was not justified in transferring the application filed by Respondent 3. The learned Single Judge could see through the game of Ramroop and like and dismissed the writ petition by recording the following reasons:
"Copy of patta has not been annexed along with the writ petition. On enquiry from the Court as to why since 1968 till 1997 i.e. for 29 years, no efforts were made by the petitioner or mother of the petitioner to get her name mutated in the revenue records, no reply could be given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for Respondent 3 stated that mother of the petitioner Smt. Kalawati Devi was daughter - in - law of Ramroop, the Pradhan, who signed the patta and gave statement before CO. It has further been stated that the said Pradhan also executed antedated pattas in favour of his sons and other family members.
It is quite clear that as until 1969 prior permission of SDO was not required, hence the Pradhan manufactured the pattas of Gaon Sabha land and antedated the same to a date prior to 1969. There is absolutely no reason that in case patta had in fact been executed, the names of lessees would not have been mutated in the revenue records. Prima facie it appears to be loot of the public property.
The Collector is the best person to look into this matter. If the Collector finds that no patta was executed in 1968 and Ramroop and his family members usurped the property of the Gaon Sabha on the ground that prior to 1969, he was Pradhan, then stern action must be taken / recommended to be taken against the CO who passed the order on 12-2-1997. The Collector may also reopen all such cases in t