JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for Shitla Prasad Pandey respondent No. 5, in the writ petition of 2007. 2. The prayer made in the writ petition of 2007 is that respondents may be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the agricultural land in dispute and from interfering in their possession. Both the petitioners are influential ladies as petitioner No. 1 is wife of Daya Shanker Tiwari who is Pradhan and petitioner No. 2 is wife of Kamla Shanker, real brother of Daya Shanker Tiwari. With respect to the same land in dispute earlier four more writ petitions (including the second writ petition of 2002 which is being decided through this judgment) had been filed by the same petitioners and through the same counsel, however in this writ petition absolutely no mention was made to those writ petitions. It was material/deliberate concealment of vital fact. The numbers of other three writ petitions are as follows: (1) Writ Petition No. 1036 of 1985, dismissed as infructuous on 20.2.2005 in view of pendency of Writ Petition No. 16214 of 1991. (2) Writ Petition No. 16214 of 1991, dismissed on 10.7.2006. (3) Writ Petition No. 55431 of 2003, dismissed on 7.12.2006 for the same relief (word by word same relief) as prayed in the present writ petition of 2007. 3. The dispute relates to several Gaon Sabha plots, total area of which is 8 bighas 16 biswas. Petitioners claimed that Gaon Sabha on 22.2.1976 passed resolution and allotted the land in dispute to them and that on 29.12.1984, the village in question was brought under consolidation through notification under Section 4(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act whereupon petitioners filed objections stating therein that land in dispute had been allotted to them on 22.2.1976 and they were in possession however due to negligence of the lekhpal their names had not been entered in the revenue records. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objections through order dated 15.2.1985. Against the said order two appeals were filed one by Gaon Sabha and one by the Uma Devi claiming to be tenure holder of the land in dispute. Appeals were dismissed by S.O.C. on 29.7.1987. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objections through order dated 15.2.1985. Against the said order two appeals were filed one by Gaon Sabha and one by the Uma Devi claiming to be tenure holder of the land in dispute. Appeals were dismissed by S.O.C. on 29.7.1987. The matter was carried in revision before the D.D.C. who allowed the revisions through order dated 15.3.1990 and remanded the matter to C.O. The order dated 15.3.1990 was challenged through Writ Petition No. 16214 of 1991. The writ petition was dismissed on 10.7.2006 as noticed above. On inquiry from Court, learned counsel stated that after remand matter was still pending. This is extremely unfortunate. 4. It appears that through the writ petition of 1985 (supra) order passed by C.O. dated 15.2.1985 was sought to be enforced. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on the ground that the said order had been set aside by the D.D.C. and matter was subjudice in Writ Petition No. 16214 of 1991. 5. The details of subsequent writ petitions have been provided by learned standing counsel in the counter-affidavit and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 in writ petition of 2007. 6. In the writ petition of 2007, it has been stated that Shitla Prasad gave some application to the D.M. for removal of encroachment on 18.9.2007 on which D.M. passed order on 25.9.2007 directing Naib Tehsildar to remove the encroachment if any through police force. Thereafter, petitioners also gave some application to the D.M. on 31.10.2007. In paras 10 to 12 of the writ petition of 2007, it has been stated that petitioner had filed some suit against Shitla Prasad Pandey, respondent No. 5 in the writ petition of 2007 in which injunction order had been granted. However, copy of the order has not been annexed and it appears that suit had been filed only against Shitla Prasad Pandey, hence any order passed therein has got absolutely no binding effect upon the Gaon Sabha and authorities of the State. 7. In the second writ petition of 2002 (No. 30814) some order of S.O.C. dated 17.6.2002 for measurement etc. has been challenged. Stay order in the said writ petition was initially granted on 5.8.2002 but it was vacated on 29.10.2003. The main ground taken in the said writ petition was pendency of Writ Petition No. 16214 of 1991. 7. In the second writ petition of 2002 (No. 30814) some order of S.O.C. dated 17.6.2002 for measurement etc. has been challenged. Stay order in the said writ petition was initially granted on 5.8.2002 but it was vacated on 29.10.2003. The main ground taken in the said writ petition was pendency of Writ Petition No. 16214 of 1991. As the writ petition of 1991 itself had been dismissed, hence writ petition of 2002 is liable to be dismissed. 8. By making material/ deliberate concealment petitioners have gravely abused the process of Court. In several cases it has been held that with the active help of authorities during consolidation unscrupulous persons usurp the Gaon Sabha land. In this regard reference may be made to a judgment given by me in Dina Nath v. State of U.P., 2009(9) ADJ 735 , relevant paragraph of the said authority are quoted below: “10. If the Collector finds that no patta was executed in 1968 and Ram Roop 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 C.O. who passed the order on 12.2.1997. Collector may also re-open all such cases in the District in which Gaon Sabha property was mutated in the name of private persons in the similar manner. If patta is executed, then immediately name of the allottee is mutated in the revenue records. Few months delay in getting the names mutated in the revenue records on the basis of pattas is understandable but few decades or few years delay is not at all understandable. 11. The experience of the Court is that during consolidation proceedings, Consolidation Authorities/ Officers liberally donate the Gaon Sabha properties to influential/ resourceful persons by passing such orders as has been passed in the instant case. 12. Accordingly, all the Collectors of all the Districts in the State are directed to re-open such cases where names of private persons are entered in revenue records on the basis of old pattas or adverse possession over Gaon Sabha land and correct the illegality by taking suo motu action. However, no orders shall be set aside without issuing notice and hearing affected persons. If notice through registered post is not served then it may be served through publication in the newspaper also. However, no orders shall be set aside without issuing notice and hearing affected persons. If notice through registered post is not served then it may be served through publication in the newspaper also. If it is found that some Consolidation Officer or S.O.C. or D.D.C. has done similar thing, then the action must be proposed to be taken against him also. 13. Supreme Court has held that fraud vitiates even most solemn proceedings vide Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail and others, AIR 1995 SC 1205 (Para-9), United India Insurance Company v. Rajendra Singh, AIR 2000 SC 1165 and A.V. Papaya Sastry v. Government of A.P. and others, AIR 2007 SC 1546 (Para-39).” 9. The said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court in the form of SLP(Civil) No. 4398 of 2010, Dina Nath v. State. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 29.3.2010 by holding that “The learned Single Judge could see through the game of Ramroop and like and dismissed the writ petition by recording the following reasons” and thereafter quoted almost my entire judgment in inverted commas and approved the same. A similar matter has recently been decided by me pertaining to Ghaziabad on 1.3.2012. The said judgment is in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Lajja Ram, 2012(3) ADJ 630 of the said authority is quoted below: “Accordingly, it is held that whenever a person comes alongwith the case that Gaon Sabha land was allotted to him or some order was passed by any Court in his favour declaring his right over Gaon Sabha land or some revenue entry was in his favour long before but during last several years his name is not recorded in the revenue records then an irrebuttable presumption amounting to almost conclusive proof must be drawn to the effect that allotment order or entry is forged.” 10. It is reported that husband of petitioner No. 1 is Pradhan. It is a fit case where proceedings against husband of the petitioner No. 1 shall be initiated under Section 95(1)(g)(iii) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act as continuous possession of Gaon Sabha land by his wife is utter abuse of his position, hence his continuance as Pradhan is not desirable in public interest. 11. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed with Rs. 11. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed with Rs. 25,000/- as cost which shall be recovered from each petitioner in equal share by the Collector Mirzapur and deposited in consolidated Gaon Fund constituted under Section 125 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Action against husband petitioner No. 1 shall be taken as indicated above. 12. The C.O. is directed to decide the matter pursuant to the remand order passed by D.D.C. dated 15.3.1990 and confirmed by this Court through judgment dated 10.7.2006 dismissing the writ petition No. 16214 of 1991 very expeditiously. Absolutely no adjournment shall be granted to the petitioners. The matter appears to be pending before C.O. Baraut, Mirzapur. The property in dispute is situate in village Dhasra Raja Tappa Upraudh Post Kanokhar P.S. and Tehsil Lalganj District Mirzapur. 13. Petitioners, if they are in possession, shall immediately be evicted by the Collector. However, L.M.C. is restrained from allotting the land in dispute to any one until decision by Consolidation Officer. If the C.O. decided against petitioners then he shall also direct recovery of damages @ Rs. 10,000/- per hectare per year for the period for which petitioners remained in possession from the petitioners which shall be recovered like arrears of land revenue by the Collector and kept under consolidated Gaon Fund. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri S.P. Mishra, learned standing counsel. ——————