Ran Vijai Singh,J. On 11.2.2014 this Court has passed the following order: "By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 21.1.1998 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer Sadar Jaunpur in restoration application filed by the Gaon Sabha and the respondent no. 5 and order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial-I), Varanasi Division, Varahasi in Revision No. 75/98 (Ram Lakhan Vs. Gaon Sabha and others). 2. The petitioner has claimed benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act ') over a piece of land situated over Plot No. 347 measuring about 0.145 hectare situated in Village Para Patti, Pargana Havely, District Jaunpur. The Lekhpal, who happens to be Secretary of the Land Management Committee, has submitted his report on 1.5.1997 to the Sub-Divisional Officer stating therein that adjacent to the land in dispute, the petitioner's chak is there and the petitioner has also encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land and is in possession over the same. The Revenue Inspector has also filed the same kind of report on 10.5.1997. The Tehsildar, thereafter, has submitted the same report on 30.5.1997. Taking note of that, the Sub-Divisional Officer has declared the petitioner as bhumidhar with non-transferable right and directed for recording the petitioner's name in place of the Gaon Sabha. 3. In turn, the respondent no. 5 and the Pradhan have filed restoration application. The case of the respondent no. 5 was that he is in possession over the land in dispute and the entire proceeding is farce and exparte. The village Pradhan has also stated that without there being any notice to the Gaon Sabha, the impugned order has been passed. The restoration application was allowed on 21.1.1998 and the matter was directed to be heard again with the liberty to the parties to adduce their evidence in support of their case. The petitioner has filed revision against the aforesaid order that has been dismissed holding it to be not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the report of Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector and Tehslidar, the petitoner was extended benefit under Section 122-B (4F) of the Act and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Manorey Vs Manohar Vs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the report of Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector and Tehslidar, the petitoner was extended benefit under Section 122-B (4F) of the Act and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Manorey Vs Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. and others 2003 (94) RD 538, since it is a deeming provision, therefore the property is vested in the petitioner after satisfying the ingredients as contained in the aforesaid section. In his submissions, the Sub-Divisional Officer has erred in entertaining the restoration application. He has further contended that no resolution was passed by the Gaon sabha and the Pradahn himself through private lawyer has filed restoration application therefore also this application was not maintainable. 5. The Court desires to know the following details from the State as well as counsel for the Gaon Sabha :- (i) What is the procedure prescribed for extending the benefit of Section 122-B (4F) to a tenure holder. (ii) Is there any requirement to issue notice to the Gaon Sabha and the State before extending the benefit under section 122-B (4F) particularly in the circumstances when the Secretary land Managements Committee, Revenue Inspector and Tehsildar have endorsed the possession of claimant. (iii) What is the criteria for determining the possession of a particular person for extending the benefit under Section 122-B (4F). 6. Learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the Gaon Sabha are also directed to produce the record on the next date fixed. 7. Put up on 20th February, 2014 as fresh." 8. Learned standing counsel states that letter was sent on 14.2.14 to the Additional Commissioner, Judicial, Varanasi, Collector Jaunpur and Deputy Collector, Sadar Jaunpur. Thereafter the case was listed on 21.2.2014 and it was ordered to be listed on 25.2.2014. Again the case was listed on 25.2.2014 and was postponed for 12th March, 2014 due to non availability of the record and instructions. Learned standing counsel states that instruction was sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Jaunpur but it was not sufficient to the satisfy the queries made by the Court. Learned standing counsel further states that he has telephonically talked to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Jaunpur on 22.2.2014 and 23.2.2014 but that was of no avail. Therefore letter was again sent on 6.3.2014 to the aforementioned authorities but that too is of no avail. 9. Learned standing counsel further states that he has telephonically talked to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Jaunpur on 22.2.2014 and 23.2.2014 but that was of no avail. Therefore letter was again sent on 6.3.2014 to the aforementioned authorities but that too is of no avail. 9. Since the question involved in this writ petition is related to the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha through which benefit is extended to the Members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and it is noticed that benefit is not given to the genuine persons, in the absence of any procedure and guidelines for extending the benefit, therefore, the Principal Secretary, Revenue is directed to file an affidavit with regard to the queries made by the Court. In case there is no procedure prescribed what steps the State Government is intending to take. The affidavit is to be sworn by an officer not below the rank of Special Secretary, Revenue. 10. Put up on 2nd April, 2014. Till then the interim order granted earlier shall continue. _______________