JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Azad Khan, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. All these writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 3. None of the respondents have filed counter affidavit inspite of the order dated 31.03.2015. 4. The petitioners herein claim to be the recorded tenure holder in respect of Gata No. 1265 Village- Mirpur, Pargana and Tehsil- Ram Nagar, District- Barabanki alleging encroachment by them and another on the adjustment Gata No. 1266 which is recorded in the Revenue records as pond. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The notice for recovery of damages was issued which led to be filing of a writ petition by the petitioners along with 29 others bearing Writ Petition No. 19(M/S) of 2014; Suresh Chandra @ Suresh and others Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. which was disposed of on 10.01.2014 in the following terms: - "Learned Chief Standing Counsel states that all 4 notices dated 20.11.2013 were written/ typed on both the sides. Photostat copy of all 4 notices of both the sides has just now been supplied by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to Shri Narendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned standing counsel after consulting Rajesh Kumar the Tehsildar concerned who is present in the court, states that there is calculation error in the proposed damages and proposed damages would not be more than about Rs. 6 Lakhs. Next date fixed is 13.01.2014. The date of 13.01.2014 is adjourned to 10.02.2014. Copy of this order shall be placed on the files of all 4 cases. All the 4 cases shall be consolidated. However on 13.01.2014 petitioners or their learned counsel must be present before the Tehsildar concerned and the Tehsildar shall supply them supplementary notice indicating the damages which according to Tehsildar are required to be paid by each petitioner alongwith its basis. The basic dispute is as to whether constructions have been made by the petitioners in plot no. 1265 or 1266. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners constructions have been made in plot no. 1265 which plot the petitioners have purchased. The basic dispute is as to whether constructions have been made by the petitioners in plot no. 1265 or 1266. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners constructions have been made in plot no. 1265 which plot the petitioners have purchased. However according to the learned Additional Chief standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, constructions or part of them have been made in plot no. 1266 which is a pond. This controversy can be decided only through survey. Accordingly on the next date i.e. 10.02.2014 a date for survey must be fixed, which must be at least two weeks' thereafter. Survey may be conducted either by one official or team of officials. Petitioners will also be entitled to engage the services of some private surveyors who may remain present at the time of survey. Writ petition is disposed of." 5. Prior to it, a Public Interest Litigation bearing No. 11225(M/B) of 2013; Mohd. Afzal & 19 others Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. was filed in respect of the alleged encroachment on Gata No. 1266 referred herein above based on the contention that the said land was a pond, but, had been encroached by the petitioners and others whereupon on 03.12.2013 the following order was passed: - "The grievance of the petitioners is that a village pond admeasuring about 0.3360 hectare at Khasra No. 1266 situated in Village Meerpur, District Barabanki is being encroached upon. Having regard to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1123 , an earlier public interest litigation was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors., 2012 (11) ADJ 404 . In consequence, we direct that the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the concerned respondent with a certified copy of this order so that an appropriate inquiry can be initiated and required action be taken in accordance with law to protect the public pond in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court. We expect that this exercise should be completed expeditiously. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs." 6. Subsequently, another Public Interest Litigation bearing No. 6506(M/B) of 2014 was filed by Israr Ahmad & 29 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and 27 Ors. We expect that this exercise should be completed expeditiously. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs." 6. Subsequently, another Public Interest Litigation bearing No. 6506(M/B) of 2014 was filed by Israr Ahmad & 29 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and 27 Ors. which was decided on 23.07.2014 challenging the validity of Section 117 and Section 122-B of the Act which was turned down, however, with regard to the factual controversy the Court took note of the proceeding under Section 122-B of the Act referred herein above and the revisions arising thereof and accordingly directed for disposal of revisions with the utmost expedition preferably within a period of three months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. In the proceeding under Section 122-B notices were issued and a survey team was constituted which conducted a survey/measurement on 05.03.2014, however, the private surveyor of the petitioners and others similarly situated could not present himself during survey on 05.03.2014 on account of death of his mother. Therefore, on 06.03.2014 an application was filed in the leading case of Suresh praying that resurvey be held for the aforesaid reasons and also as the same had not been appropriately done. On this application the Tehsildar fixed the next date as 04.04.2014 taking note of the averments that the private surveyor who was permitted to be present during survey by this Court vide its judgment dated 10.01.2014 could not present himself on account of the death of his mother. However, in the meantime contempt proceedings were initiated before this Court for non compliance of the orders passed in the writ petitions already referred herein above and next date fixed therein was 04.04.2016. On a bare reading of the order passed under Section 122-B the Court finds that although the Tehsildar had already fixed 04.04.2016 for considering the application of the petitioner and other similarly situated for resurvey, but, on account of the contempt proceedings he was persuaded to prepone the matter that too without recalling his earlier order fixing the matter for 04.04.2016. On a bare reading, he seems to have hurriedly passed the order dated 25.03.2014, so as to save himself from the contempt proceedings. Unfortunately, the said order has been sustained by the revisional Court also vide its order dated 06.12.2014. On a bare reading, he seems to have hurriedly passed the order dated 25.03.2014, so as to save himself from the contempt proceedings. Unfortunately, the said order has been sustained by the revisional Court also vide its order dated 06.12.2014. The revisional Court also failed to appreciate that the private surveyor could not present himself on the relevant date for genuine reasons, therefore, the request for resurvey was not unreasonable, specially, in view of the judgment of this Court dated 10.01.2014. This Court took note of the fact that the revisional Court dropped the proceedings against Shri Suresh on the ground that he had not encroached the land of Gaon Sabha. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the fact that the petitioners were granted interim protection by this Court on 31.03.2015 by staying the impugned orders in so far as they relate to Gata No. 1266, the interest of justice would be met, if a resurvey of the plot(s) in question is held in keeping with the judgment of this Court dated 10.01.2014 within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted and till then, status quo as it exists in respect of the plot(s) be maintained. 9. It is ordered, accordingly. 10. The impugned order shall abide by the result of the resurvey and appropriate consequential action/orders shall be passed by the concerned authority accordingly within a period of 15 days from the date of report of the resurvey. 11. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.