JUDGMENT Honble S.U. Khan, J.—This writ petition was nominated to me by Honble the Chief Justice through order dated 2.08.2004. Thereafter on 4.8.2004, I passed the following order on the writ petition : "This is a writ petition through which a prayer has been made that respondents must be restrained from letting out or granting Patta for fishery rights over the land which belongs to the petitioner. Earlier also similar Patta was granted regarding part of the land which has not been challenged by the petitioner anywhere. It appears that the Patta-holder society has filed some suit against the petitioner which is pending according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner and no injunction has been granted therein. Through this writ petition prayer of the petitioner is that respondents i.e. State of U.P., District Magistrate and Tehsildar should be restrained from allotting other land of the petitioner in plot Nos. 281 and 339 for fishery rights to any one else. Only ponds can be allotted for exercising fishery rights. As far as pond is concerned no person can be permitted to occupy the same. Ponds are lifeline of the village. Collector, Allahabad is directed to immediately make inspection of the spot and if it is found that pond is occupied by any person then the inquiry shall be make as to how it happened. The report of inquiry shall be sent to this Court. Shri S.R. Jalil learned Standing Counsel is directed to send a copy of this order to the Collector, Allahabad who shall send a compliance report to this Court within a month. This writ petition must be listed alongwith report of the Collector on 7th September, 2004. Copy of this order may be supplied to Shri S.R. Jalil, learned Standing Counsel free of cost by 9.8.2004." 2. The dispute relates to plot No. 281 area 16 bighas 1 biswa and Plot No. 339 area 18 bighas 8 biswas corresponding to old plot Nos. 1607 and 862/1 situate in Village Sirhir, Post Silaudhi, Tehsil Meja, District Allahabad. The prayer in the writ petition is that respondents may be restrained from auctioning or executing any patta of the disputed plots for fisheries purposes to any one else. 3. Earlier a part of the plots in dispute had been let out for fisheries purposes to respondent No. 4-Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti, Sirhir, Allahabad. The prayer in the writ petition is that respondents may be restrained from auctioning or executing any patta of the disputed plots for fisheries purposes to any one else. 3. Earlier a part of the plots in dispute had been let out for fisheries purposes to respondent No. 4-Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti, Sirhir, Allahabad. A civil suit (O.S. No. 481 of 2002) filed by respondent No. 4 regarding his fisheries patta is also reported to be pending. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that in consolidation proceedings in the year 1976-1978, plots in dispute, which were earlier recorded as pond (talab) had been held to belong to the petitioner. Further case of the petitioner is that Consolidation Officer passed order in his favour however the said order was set aside in appeal by S.O.C. and against the order of S.O.C., petitioner filed revision being Revision No. 359/425 of 1978, Smt. Shamli Devi and others v. Gaon Sabha, which was allowed by D.D.C., Allahabad on 28.10.1978 and through the said order, it was directed that the property in dispute should be entered as Bhumidhari of the petitioner. Through the said order, order of S.O.C. was set aside. D.D.C. further mentioned in his order that on his spot inspection, he found that crops sown by the petitioner were standing on major portion of the plots in dispute. It was also mentioned that Pradhan was present on the spot, who admitted the case of the petitioner. Photostat copy of the certified copy of the said judgment has also been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 5. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is alleged C.H. Form No. 45. In the said Form, at the top, it is clearly mentioned that previously the property was mentioned as Shreni-VI (Category-VI), non-agricultural land; talab (pond). Thereafter, it is mentioned that by order dated 28.10.1978 passed by D.D.C., the name of Gaon Sabha should be expunged and petitioners name should be entered. On both the pages of copy of C.H. Form No. 45 (Annexure-II), word talab" is mentioned. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has filed several affidavits annexing therewith copies of records. Original records were also summoned by me. The contention of learned Standing Counsel is that no such order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition (Revisional Courts order dated 28.10.1978) was ever passed and that in the records no such file is available. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has filed several affidavits annexing therewith copies of records. Original records were also summoned by me. The contention of learned Standing Counsel is that no such order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition (Revisional Courts order dated 28.10.1978) was ever passed and that in the records no such file is available. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had filed certified copies of all the orders passed by C.O., S.O.C. and D.D.C. and if original was not available, then petitioner was not to be blamed. 8. I do not propose to base my judgment upon this aspect of the matter. It is admitted to the petitioner that since Zamindari Abolition, property in dispute was entered as pond in the revenue records. It is also evident from copy of C.H. Form No. 45 filed by the petitioner herself as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. By virtue of Section 6 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, ponds vested in State on enforcement of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, i.e. w.e.f. 1.7.1952. Section 6 including its sub-section (a) is quoted below : "6. Consequences of the vesting of an estate in the State.—When the notification under Section 4 has been published in the Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or document or in any other law for the time being in force and save as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall, from the beginning of the date of vesting, ensure in the area to which the notification relates, namely : (a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries— (i) in every estate in such area including land (cultivable or barren), grove land, forests whether within or outside village boundaries, trees (other than trees in villages abadi, holding or grove), fisheries, tanks, ponds, water channels, ferries, Pathways, abadi sites, hats, bazars and melas [other than hats, bazars and melas held upon land to which clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 apply]; (ii) in all sub-soils in such estates including rights, if any, in mines and minerals, whether being worked or not, shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances." 9. Even if thereafter some portion or the whole pond becomes dry, it does not cease to be a pond and even Gaon Sabha cannot allot the pond for any other purposes except fisheries purposes to any one vide AIR 2001 SC 3215 , Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi. 10. It is also important to note that the alleged order of D.D.C. was never mutated in the revenue records. The lame excuse and explanation of the petitioner is that she filed several applications for the said purpose but no heed was paid. The applications are alleged to have been filed on 23.8.1985, 7.2.1992, 12.11.1997 and 26.03.2004. The last application is Annexure-6 and in Para-4 of the said application, the aforesaid dates of filing of earlier applications has been mentioned. Copies of the other applications are also part of Annexure-6. However, absolutely no evidence has been filed to show that actually these applications were filed (photostat copies of the original applications containing any receipt have not been filed). Moreover, even according to own allegation of the petitioner, first application was filed after seven years in 1985 and then thereafter she again waited for seven years for the next application, which was filed in 1992. It is also mentioned in Para-10 of the writ petition that in the year 1994, fisheries patta was granted to respondent No. 4 by Gaon Sabha in respect of part of the property. Even then no effective steps were taken for getting the names entered in the revenue records. 11. Even if it is assumed that some order in favour of the petitioner was passed by the consolidation authorities/Courts, it was utterly without jurisdiction. Ponds vest in State and Gaon Sabha. No person can claim right through adverse possession over the Gaon Sabha land. Independently of all these propositions, no person can claim right over pond, which vested in State on the enforcement of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. D.D.C. mentioned that the witness of the petitioner stated that petitioner was in adverse possession over the pond in dispute. Thereafter he stated that in 1942, some patta of the pond in dispute had been executed by Zamindar in favour of the petitioner. If there had been any patta in favour of the petitioner before or after enforcement of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, then the name of the petitioner would have been entered in the revenue records. 12. Thereafter he stated that in 1942, some patta of the pond in dispute had been executed by Zamindar in favour of the petitioner. If there had been any patta in favour of the petitioner before or after enforcement of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, then the name of the petitioner would have been entered in the revenue records. 12. As far as revenue records are concerned till date petitioners name is not there. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an order, which is utterly without jurisdiction, can be ignored even in ancillary proceedings vide AIR 2004 SC 4377 , Balavant N. Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule and the authorities mentioned in Para-10 onward of the said authority. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed and in view of observations and directions of Supreme Court given in Hinch Lal Tiwaris case (supra), it is directed that the State Government shall restore and revive the entire area in dispute as pond. Ponds are lifeline of the villages. They are extremely helpful in maintaining underground water level. The efforts to revive the pond in dispute shall be made by the State on priority basis since start of rainy season in June/July, 2008. ————