JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Raj Priya Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel representing respondent nos.5 and 6. 2. Sri R.K.Shukla, Advocate who has lodged a caveat on behalf of complainant has also been given right to intervention in terms of the provisions contained in Chapter XXII Rule 5-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, though the complainant has not been arrayed as respondents. 3. This petition by an institution assails the validity of decision dated 27.06.2017 taken by the Regional Recognition Committee, which has been communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 27.06.2017, annexed as annexure no.1 to the writ petition. 4. By the impugned decision, the recognition granted to the petitioner-institution about 30 years' ago, way back on 22.02.1988 by the District Basic Education Officer, Faizabad has been withdrawn. 5. It appears that the petitioner-institution was established to impart education to young children upto class VIIIth. On the application preferred by the petitioner-institution, recognition was accorded on 22.02.1988 and since then the institution has been running. However, a complaint appears to have been made by the complainant that the school building does not exist on the land belonging to the petitioner-institution or the society running the institution; rather the land of gate no.435 having an area of 0.145 hect., on which school building exists, is recorded as gaon sabha property as naveen parti. Along with complaint a report of Naib Tehsildar, Jalalpur dated 26.11.2015 was annexed and further an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalalpur dated 18.03.2016 was also relied upon. 6. On receipt of the complaint, it appears that the Block Education Officer, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar issued notice to the petitioner-institution dated 02.07.2016, to which, as has been asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner, reply was also submitted by the Manager of the institution by means of letter dated 05.07.2016, which has been annexed as annexure no.14 to the writ petition. However, the impugned order recites that no reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner-institution within the time stipulated in the notice. 7. However, the impugned order recites that no reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner-institution within the time stipulated in the notice. 7. As per recital made in the impugned decision dated 27.06.2017, the Sub-Divisional Officer in his order dated 18.03.2016 passed by him under Section 38 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 has found that over the plot no.435, name of the petitioner-institution is not recorded; rather the same is recorded as gaon sabha property as naveen parhi. The order dated 18.03.2016 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on an application moved by the petitioner-institution under Section 38 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 seeking correction of revenue records on the ground that at the time of consolidation operation in the village, the plot in question was earmarked while preparation of statement of principle, as the land for pathshala. Further case of the petitioner, which can be gathered from the impugned order/decision, is that the consolidation committee had resolved to earmark gate no.435 for pathshala for the reason that on the said plot itself, the petitioner-institution has been running from past. On the said basis, the correction in the revenue records was sought by the petitioner-institution, however, the Sub-Divisional Officer after examining the matter rejected the application moved by the petitioner-institution seeking correction of the records while passing the order dated 18.03.2016. 8. It has been stated at bar that against the said order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, a revision petition has been preferred before the Board of Revenue, which is still pending, in which an order of admitting the petition was passed on 19.04.2017. 9. A perusal of the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer clearly reveals that the land of gate no.435 never belonged to the petitioner-institution; rather during consolidation operations, it was earmarked as land for public utility purpose for parthshala. 9. A perusal of the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer clearly reveals that the land of gate no.435 never belonged to the petitioner-institution; rather during consolidation operations, it was earmarked as land for public utility purpose for parthshala. The petitioner-institution even if was established from before cannot claim any right or title over the said land as the land is recorded as naveen parti which is vested in gaon sabha and as such merely on account of the resolution said to have been passed by the consolidation committee at the time of preparation of statement of principles, earmarking the land in question for pathshala would not entitle any private entity including the petitioner-institution or the society running the institution to establish a school unless the said land is allotted to the petitioner-institution by a valid resolution of the gaon sabha, if it is so permissible under law. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to establish that there is any lease or allotment in favour of the petitioner-institution by gaon sabha; rather his primary argument is that the impugned order wrongly recites that the petitioner-institution did not submit any reply to the show cause notice dated 02.07.2016. He has further submitted that in fact, reply was given by the Manager of the institution vide letter dated 05.07.2016, which was duly received in the office of the concerned authority on 14.07.2016. 11. I have perused the records available with this petition including the reply said to have been submitted by the petitioner-institution vide its letter dated 05.07.2016. From a perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner-institution against the show cause notice, it is clear that the petitioner has utterly failed to establish any right to run the institution on gata no.435, which has been found recorded as naveen parti as gaon sabha land by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide his order dated 18.03.2016. In the said reply dated 05.07.2016, the petitioner nowhere recites or states that the land of gate no.435 was allotted to the petitioner-institution by gaon sabha. 12. What all has been stated by the petitioner in the said reply is that the complaint against the institution was made by the complainant with malafide intentions and only for seeking vengeance for certain reasons. 12. What all has been stated by the petitioner in the said reply is that the complaint against the institution was made by the complainant with malafide intentions and only for seeking vengeance for certain reasons. In the said reply, it was further stated by the petitioner-institution that the fact that the complaint is based on malafide intentions and is a result of vengeance on the part of complainant, is established for the reason that in the year 2011-12, the complainant had claimed to be a member of the general body of the society running the institution which was found not tenable and it is for this reason only that the complaint was made. Further reply submitted through the letter dated 05.07.2016 by the petitioner-institution was that the school building and the sports ground of the institution are situated on plot no.435, which was earmarked for pathshala, as is apparent from perusal of CH Form-23 and it is on the basis of the said document that initially the District Basic Education Officer, Faizabad had granted recognition to the petitioner-institution. 13. I have scrutinized the reply submitted by the petitioner-institution vide letter of the Manager dated 05.07.2016, which does not establish any right of the petitioner-institution to be established on plot no.435, even if reply submitted by the petitioner-institution is taken to be correct. The land of plot no.435 having an area of 0.145 hect. was earmarked for public utility purpose as pathshala. The purpose of marking the land for public utility purpose is to facilitate setting up of a school and other public utility amenities such as posture land or establishment of khalihan etc. However, no individual or a private entity or a society can be permitted to establish a school by constructing a building on such public utility land even if it is earmarked for pathshala unless the land is leased out for the said purpose by gaon sabha. It is not the case of the petitioner that the land of gate no.435 was ever allotted or leased to the petitioner-institution. Accordingly, reliance placed by the Recognition Committee to the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, while taking the impugned decision dated 27.06.2017, cannot be faulted with. 14. However, there is yet another aspect of the matter which needs consideration by the Court. 15. Accordingly, reliance placed by the Recognition Committee to the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, while taking the impugned decision dated 27.06.2017, cannot be faulted with. 14. However, there is yet another aspect of the matter which needs consideration by the Court. 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-institution after getting recognition way back on 22.02.1988 has been running and imparting education to young children of the village and adjoining areas for last 30 years. The complaint made by the complainant does not appear to be bonafide; rather it is clear that the same is based on malafide intents for the reason that the claim of the complainant to become member of the general body of the society running the institution stood rejected by the Deputy Registrar concerned. It appears that the entire complaint made by the complainant is, thus, motivated and laced with vengeance. 16. In these circumstance, I find it appropriate to modify the impugned decision of the Recognition Committee by providing that the impugned decision shall not be given effect to till 31st March, 2018 i.e. till the end of current academic session. In the meantime, the petitioner-institution shall make all endeavours to get the school building shifted to some other place or it shall make endeavour to get the land of gate no.435 exchanged with any other land in terms of the provision contained in Section 101 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. If any such endeavour is made by the petitioner-institution for exchange of land, the gaon sabha concerned, tehsil authorities including the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer and the District Collector shall extend their all possible cooperation and help. 17. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that pursuant to the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar vide his letter dated 22.05.2017 has recommended cancellation of the recognition to the petitioner-institution and also to lodge an FIR. 18. The Recognition Committee vide impugned decision, has though cancelled the recognition of the petitioner-institution, however, it has not decided to lodge any FIR against the petitioner-institution. 19. Since this Court has already modified the decision of the Recognition Committee dated 27.06.2017, no coercive measures against the petitioner-institution shall be taken till 31st March, 2018 including lodging of an FIR. 20. The Recognition Committee vide impugned decision, has though cancelled the recognition of the petitioner-institution, however, it has not decided to lodge any FIR against the petitioner-institution. 19. Since this Court has already modified the decision of the Recognition Committee dated 27.06.2017, no coercive measures against the petitioner-institution shall be taken till 31st March, 2018 including lodging of an FIR. 20. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.