- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. These three writ petitions were nominated to me by Hon'bie the Chief Justice after being released by two Hon'ble Judges.
(2.) 1 heard the matter for the first time on 24. 1. 2008 as fresh and appointed an advocate of this Court to make spot inspection and submit report alongwith map. Commissioner Sri S. P. Misra, Advpcate inspected the spot and submitted the report. Thereafter matters were heard on 21st and 22nd February, 2008 and judg ment was reserved on 22. 2. 2003 by the following order passed in the first writ petition: "heard Sri B. B. Paul, Sri R. K. Ojha and Sri A. P. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the three writ petitions, Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the Pollution Board-respondent in one of the writ peti tions, Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for main contesting respondent in all the three writ petitions assisted by Sri Anupam Kulshrestha. " Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has also been heard on behalf of State. Sri V. K. Singh, learned Counsel for Gaon Sabha, had been called yesterday (arguments in this case started yesterday and concluded today ). Sri V. K. Singh stated that at present, at none of the four disputed' plots, i. e. 37,38,39 and 43, name of Gaon Sabha is recorded; However, he stated that he had been informed that some cases under Sec tions 33/39 of Land Revenue Act were pending. However, learned Counsel could not give any details of the said cases. Learned Counsel for Allahabad Development Authority has also been heard. Judgment reserved. Put up for delivery of Judgment on 26. 2. 2008. Registrar General is directed to at once summon the file of Revision No. 137 of 200/-08 from the Board of Revenue, Allahabad and attach with the file of this writ petition. Sri R. N. Singh, learned senior Counsel, categorically stated that his cli ent had absolutely no intention of encroaching upon any part of the Kharnja shown in the Commissioner's map. Sri Anupam Kulshreshta, the other learned Counsel, stated that in case his client intends to make any constructions, then permission from Pollution Board will be sought. However, learned Coun sel further added that for constructing boundary wall, no permission is re quired. Interim order earlier granted in these writ petitions shall remain in opera tion till thre delivery of the judgment. " The main contesting respondent in these writ petitions is Kriya Yog Satsang Samiti Anusandhan Sansthan Allahabad, through its Secretary (hereinafter re ferred to as "kriya Yog Sansthan" ). The dispute relates to four plots viz. plot Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 43. It appears that Kriya Yog Sansthan, contesting respondent, filed some application before the Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad stating therein that it was recorded Bhumidhar of plot No. 38, 39 and 43, however, some people were trying to interfere in its possession and preventing from making construc tions. The Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad passed an order on 27. 3. 2002 record ing that the Deputy Collector stated that the land was of Gaon Sabha, however, no clear report in that regard was filed by Lekhpal or Kanungo and even though. there were several complaints in that regard but no inquiry was made. The Chief Revenue Officer opined that without any inquiry and merely on the basis of suspi cion constructions could not be stopped and in case applicant (Kriya Yog Sansthan, the contesting respondent in these writ petitions) was making construction on its Bhumidhari land then the Deputy Collector had no right to stop that. In the opera tive portion it was mentioned that in case construction was being made by the Kriya Yog Sansthan in its land comprised in plot Nos. 38, 39 and 43 which had no concern with Gaon Sabha, then there was no justification to stop the said con struction. It was further observed that in case the position was otherwise, then the Deputy Collector after inquiry should submit clear report before the Chief Revenue Officer so that further proceedings to protect the interest of Gaon Sabha could be taken. Thereafter a public interest litigation was initiated in this High Court against Kriya Yog Sansthan, the contesting respondent in the form of Writ Petition No.-27546 of 2004 filed by Zila Nishad Sabha and others in which status quo order was passed. However, writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 27. 11. 2007.
(3.) THEREAFTER Kriya Yog Sansthan filed revision before the Board of Revenue, being Revision No. 137of200/-8/alld. Kriya Yog Sansthan v. State of U. P. , Deputy Collector, Phulpur, Station House Officer, Jhunsi and Mukhya Rajasva Adhikari (C. R. O.) against part of the order dated 22. 3. 2002, referred to in the order dated 27. 3. 2007 issued by Chief Revenue Officer. In the order of Chief Revenue Officer dated 27. 3. 2002 there was a mention that Deputy Collector Phulpur had passed an order on 22. 3. 2002 stopping the constructions over plots No. 38, 39 and 43. In the revision Board of Revenue passed an order on 24. 12. 2007 directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere in the possession of Kriya Yog Sansthan over the land in dispute. It was specifically directed in the order dated 24. 12. 2007 passed by Board of Revenue that respon dents 1 to 3 shall not interfere in the right of the applicant Kriya Yog Sansthan to do agriculture or make constructions over the land in dispute in accordance with law. The Board of Revenue in the revision on 8. 1. 2008 passed an order summon ing the Station House Officer. In charge of Police Station, Jhunsi either personally or through advocate on 24. 1. 2008 to explain as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him as he was interfering in the construction work of Kriya Yog Sansthan over the land in dispute. The said orders of the Board of Revenue have been challenged through these writ petitions.;