Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.)Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner was served with a notice under Sec. 122- B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and he was required to give a reply as to why his constructions over plots no. 44 and 45 be not demolished as they were constructed over pond and Bhita. When an order for the demolition of the constructions was passed on 17.3.2015, the petitioner filed an application for the recall of the order as it was passed ex parte. When the application was dismissed, he filed a Revision. Before the Revisional Court it was categorically stated that his construction was over Abadi which was numbered as plot 280/2 and after consolidation was numbered as plot no. 45-ka.

(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a demarcation took place of plots no.
44, 45-ka and 45-kha, then it would have been found out that the petitioner's constructions were over plot no. 45-kha which was an Abadi land.

(3.)Learned Standing Counsel and the counsel for the Gaon Sabha had no satisfactory reply to the submissions made by the petitioner that had plot no. 45-ka been demarcated then it would not have been confused with plot no. 45.