Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 383 (ALL)

Lallan Upadhyay v. State of U. P.

2023-02-07

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2023
JUDGMENT Chandra Kumar Rai, J. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Asthana, holding brief of Sri Jamil Ahmad Azmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. S.B. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, he was granted fisheries lease on 8.9.1987 in respect to the pond, situated over plot nos.146, 149 and 179, which is alleged to be executed in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 8.9.1987 to 8.9.1997 for a period of 10 years. The Land Management Committee interfered with the right of the petitioner for fisheries, hence, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.38365 of 1995. This Court vide order dated 14.5.1995, directed the authority concerned, not to dispossess the petitioner from the plot with respect to his fisheries right. The petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate on 19.11.1997 and prayed for extension of the fisheries lease for a further period of 10 years. The Addl. District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) submitted a report dated 26.9.1997 and recommended for extending the fisheries lease in favour of the petitioner for a further period of 10 years. The petitioner alleged that he had deposited the requisite amount from time to time which was even accepted by the Land Management Committee without any objection and allowed the petitioner to carry out fisheries in the pond in question. Petitioner further alleged that the local person started interference in the fisheries right of the petitioner with respect to the pond in question, hence, petitioner filed an Original Suit No.478/2016 for permanent injunction in which an interim injunction was granted by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandauli on 24.11.2016. The interim injunction granted by the civil court, according to the petitioner, is in operation, but a complaint was filed by one Mangla Upadhyay of the same village, accordingly, a report was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer that petitioner has made encroachment on the aforesaid plots in dispute which is recorded as pond in the revenue records. The proceeding for ejectment under Section 136 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been initiated against the petitioner which was registered as Case No.323/2022 (Computerized Case No.T202214180200323, State v. Lallan Upadhyay). The proceeding for ejectment under Section 136 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been initiated against the petitioner which was registered as Case No.323/2022 (Computerized Case No.T202214180200323, State v. Lallan Upadhyay). The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chakiya, Chandauli vide order dated 24.2.2022, passed an order for ejectment of the petitioner from plot nos. 146, 149, 149kha as well as imposed damages of Rs.1,01,68,000/-. The Sub-Divisional Officer has recorded a finding of fact that after enquiry, it has been found that no fisheries lease was executed in favour of the petitioner and petitioner is occupying the plot in question for the last 25 years which is recorded as pond. Against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 24.2.2022, petitioner filed Revision No.612 of 2022 (Computerized Case No.AL2022141800612, Lallan Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. and Others), under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Board of Revenue along with stay application. During the pendency of the aforementioned revision before the Board of Revenue, an order of attachment was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 11.4.2022 as well as proclamation of sale under Section 184 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dated 5.5.2022. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the aforementioned proclamation, petitioner's property was sold in violation of Section 184(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The sale was made through auction and respondent no.6 purchased the property which was attached in the aforementioned proceeding for Rs.35,36,000/- on 4.6.2022. Against the order dated 4.6.2022, petitioner filed an application to set aside the sale under Section 193 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 171 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 along with stay application which has been numbered as Computerized Case No.C202214000001046 of 2022 (Lallan Upadhyay v. S.D.M, Chakiya and Others), Under Section 193 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with stay application. According to the petitioner, no interim order was granted in Revision No.612/2022, hence petitioner filed Writ C No.12706/2022 (Lallan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Others) which was disposed of vide order dated 1.7.2022, directing the Board of Revenue to pass appropriate orders on the stay application of the petitioner within a period of 10 days. According to the petitioner, no interim order was granted in Revision No.612/2022, hence petitioner filed Writ C No.12706/2022 (Lallan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Others) which was disposed of vide order dated 1.7.2022, directing the Board of Revenue to pass appropriate orders on the stay application of the petitioner within a period of 10 days. The Court has also directed that the order shall be passed in all the applications within a period of 3 weeks and till the passing of the order, parties shall maintain status quo with respect to nature, character and possession of the property in dispute. A direction was also issued for deciding the revision within a period of 6 weeks. 4. In compliance of the order dated 1.7.2022, passed by this Court, petitioner filed applications on 11.7.2022 i.e. amendment application, impleadment application and stay application. According to the petitioner, all the aforementioned applications are pending before the Commissioner in the proceeding under Section 193 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Hence, this writ petition for mandamus, directing the respondent no.2 i.e. Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi to decide stay application, pending in the aforementioned case under Section 193 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 171 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending since 10.6.2022, within time-bound period and till then, the confirmation of sale of attached property of the petitioner be stayed. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's stay application in the proceeding under Section 193 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending, hence, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court reported in 1983 AWC 121 , Mool Chand Yadav v. R.B. Sugar Company Limited, the petitioner is entitled to an interim protection in the matter. He further submitted that petitioner has initiated the proceeding under Section 193 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for setting aside the sale along with stay application and absence of interim order to the petitioner, is causing irreparable injury to him, as such, petitioner is entitled to an interim protection in the matter. He further submitted that respondent no.2 should decide the application in either way so that petitioner can avail appropriate remedy against the order, if any, but keeping the application pending, is wholly illegal. 6. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.6 and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. He further submitted that respondent no.2 should decide the application in either way so that petitioner can avail appropriate remedy against the order, if any, but keeping the application pending, is wholly illegal. 6. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.6 and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. submitted that petitioner has concealed the material facts as well as the orders passed even by this Court, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that petitioner was not granted proper lease with respect to the pond in question, as such, no protection can be granted to the petitioner in any proceeding. He further submitted that in the Civil Suit No.478/2006, State and the Gaon Sabha, have not been impleaded and the interim injunction for maintaining status quo has been obtained against the private defendant. They further submitted that the proceeding / suit under Section 136 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been decreed and an order/decree for ejectment has been passed against the petitioner which has not been set aside by any court of law, as such, petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the matter. They further submitted that the petitioner filed Writ C No.34938/2021 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn with specific direction that no liberty has been granted to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. The order dated 21.1.2022, passed in Writ C No.34938/2021 runs as follows:- "The Court is presently working on virtual mode only due to serge in Covid-19 cases. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel, appears for the respondent no.4. It is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 on the basis of instructions that no proper lease deed whatsoever has been granted in favour of the petitioner at any point of time hence petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for by him in the present writ petition. After some arguments, a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to dismiss the present writ petition as not pressed. This prayer has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. After some arguments, a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to dismiss the present writ petition as not pressed. This prayer has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clear that no liberty has been granted to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action." They further submitted that Writ C No.12706 of 2022 filed by the petitioner for a mandamus, directing the Board of Revenue, Allahabad to decide the stay application dated 25.3.2022 in Revision No.612/2022, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, a strict order has been passed by this court against the petitioner as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against him, especially in respect of the 2nd writ petition as the first writ petition being Writ C No.34938 of 2021 has already been dismissed by this court on 21.2.2022. It is also mentioned in the order that it is unfortunate that an order for recovery of damages has been passed by the S.D.M. on 24.2.2022 but till date no action has been taken in the matter. The order dated 23.5.2022, passed in Writ C No.12706 of 2022 runs as follows:- The petitioner has preferred the present petition for the following reliefs:- "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Hon'ble Board of Revenue at Allahabad to decide the stay application 25.3.2022 (Annexure No.5) of the petitioner which is pending in revision no.612 of 2022, computerized case no. AL2022141800612 (Lallan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others) under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 within stipulated period of time." It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that fisheries lease of plot nos.146, 149, 179 was granted in favour of the petitioner for a period of ten years i.e. from 8.9.1987 to 8.9.1997. In paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was continuously doing his fisheries business over the aforesaid ponds. It is further stated that earlier a petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 38365 of 1995 (Lallan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others) but nothing has been stated in the present petition that what order has been passed in the above writ petition. It is further stated that earlier a petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 38365 of 1995 (Lallan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others) but nothing has been stated in the present petition that what order has been passed in the above writ petition. It is next stated that Original Suit No. 478 of 2016 (Lallan Upadhyay v. Surya Prakash) was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Chandauli, for permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit, injunction was also granted by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandauli on 24.11.2016. Subsequently, another order was passed in the aforesaid suit on 8.3.2022, for releasing the water in the ponds. Copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No. (3) to the writ petition. It further appears from perusal of the record that a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 136 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Chaikya, Chandauli, being Case No. 323 of 2022, Computerized Case No. T202214180200323 (State v. Lallan Upadhyay). In the aforesaid case cogent findings were recorded by the authority concerned that wholly illegally and without any lease in his favour, the petitioner has misused the lease for last 25 years. In view of the matter, after recording the findings, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chaikya, Chandauli, has imposed total damages/penalty to the extent of Rs. 1,10,68,000/- upon the petitioner vide order dated 24.2.2022. In the aforesaid order there is also a reference that earlier a writ petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ- C No. 34938 of 2022 (Lallan Upadhyaya v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others), which was dismissed by this Court on 21.1.2022. It is unfortunate that in the present petition, even not a single word is whispered by the petitioner about the order dated 21.1.2022, which is passed by this Court. The order dated 21.1.2022, passed in Writ C No. 34938 of 2021 (Lallan Upadhyaya v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others), is quoted as under:- "The Court is presently working on virtual mode only due to serge in Covid-19 cases. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel, appears for the respondent no.4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel, appears for the respondent no.4. It is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 on the basis of instructions that no proper lease deed whatsoever has been granted in favour of the petitioner at any point of time hence petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for by him in the present writ petition. After some arguments, a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to dismiss the present writ petition as not pressed. This prayer has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clear that no liberty has been granted to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action." When a query was raised by the Court that why a mention has not been made regarding the earlier writ petition, a reply has been given that since the relief sought by the petitioner is altogether a different relief, as such petitioner did not think it proper to make a reference in the present petition regarding the earlier writ petition. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 24.2.2022. Against the aforesaid order a revision was filed by the petitioner before Board of Revenue, Prayagraj, being Revision No. 612 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. AL2022141800612) (Lallan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others). Though in the said revision, stay application was filed by the petitioner but till date no interim protection was granted. Hence, a prayer has been made to direct the Board of Revenue, Prayagraj, to pass an appropriate order on the said stay application. On the other hand, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the fisheries lease was granted in favour of the petitioner for a period of ten years which came to an end on 8.10.1997, but the petitioner is doing his fisheries business on the aforesaid ponds without any lease granted in his favour at any point of time thereafter. Learned Standing counsel submits that no money whatsoever has been deposited by the petitioner for the aforesaid period. Learned Standing counsel submits that no money whatsoever has been deposited by the petitioner for the aforesaid period. It is further argued that the order dated 8.3.2022 passed in Case No. 678 of 2016 in favour of the petitioner is totally illegal. It is also argued that this is not a fit case for grant of any relief to the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, the Court is of the opinion that wholly illegally and taking shelter from one or the other order from different Courts, the petitioner has illegally continued his fisheries business from last 25 years without any lease in his favour and without deposit any money. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file an affidavit explaining therein that as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against him, specially in respect of second writ petition as the first writ petition being Writ-C No. 34938 of 2021 has already been dismissed by this Court on 21.2.2022. The aforesaid affidavit be filed within a week from today. It is unfortunate that though an order for recovery of damages has been passed by the S.D.M. on 24.2.2022 but till date no action has been taken in the matter. In the circumstances, S.D.M., concerned and Revenue Authorities are directed to comply with the order passed by S.D.M. dated 24.02.2022 without any further delay. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to seek instructions in the matter. Put up on 30.5.2022 as fresh. Registrar (Judicial) Compliance is directed to place a copy of this order in the record of the suit filed by the petitioner before Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chandauli, being Suit No. 478 of 2016 (Lallan Upadhyay v. Surya Prakash) as well as revision filed by the petitioner before Board of Revenue, Prayagraj being revision no. 612 of 2022 computerized case no. AL2022141800612 (Lallan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others) on or before 27.5.2022." They further submitted that petitioner again filed Writ C No.16395/2022 before a Division Bench of this Court for mandamus, directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the peaceful functioning of the petitioner of pisciculture in the pond situated in arazi nos. 612 of 2022 computerized case no. AL2022141800612 (Lallan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others) on or before 27.5.2022." They further submitted that petitioner again filed Writ C No.16395/2022 before a Division Bench of this Court for mandamus, directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the peaceful functioning of the petitioner of pisciculture in the pond situated in arazi nos. 146, 149 & 179 of village Mudahua Uttari, Post Rampur Kalan District Chandauli within the specified period, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.7.2022. The order dated 25.7.2022, passed in Writ C No.16395 of 2022 runs as follows:- The present petition has been filed with the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Authorities esp. Respondent No.4 and 5 to remove the illegal possession/ construction of the bhumidhari land of petitioner Arazi No.186, 187, 188 situated village Mudahua Uttari, Post Rampur Kalan, District Chandauli. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Authorities not to disturb the peaceful functioning of petitioner of pisciculture (Matsya Palan) in Pond situated at Arazi No.146 area 0.2560 hect., Arazi No.179 area 0.6070 hect and area No.149 area 1.540 hect. Situated village Mudahua Uttari, Post Rampur Kalan, District Chandauli within specified period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." It is sought to be contended by the petitioner herein that he is carrying out fishing operations in plot nos.146, 179 & 149 situated in village Mudahua Uttari, Post Rampur Kalan, District Chandauli and the administrative authorities are illegally interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question. It is, then, submitted that in an original suit no.478 of 2016, an interim injunction has been passed on 24.11.2016 in favour of the petitioner. Considering the said submissions, we may note that in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.3148 of 2017 filed by the petitioner himself, it was admitted by the petitioner that Plot Nos. 149-Kh, 223, 146 and 179 of village in question are recorded as "Pond, Pokhar and Bavali" in the revenue records, which have been encroached by certain private persons. By order dated 23.01.2017 passed therein the competent authority had been directed to make inquiry and take an expeditious decision in accordance with law. 149-Kh, 223, 146 and 179 of village in question are recorded as "Pond, Pokhar and Bavali" in the revenue records, which have been encroached by certain private persons. By order dated 23.01.2017 passed therein the competent authority had been directed to make inquiry and take an expeditious decision in accordance with law. It further seems from the record that the petitioner herein has filed the original suit against a private person with regard to the land in question, wherein interim injunction order was passed by the competent court, with the assertion that the petitioner had obtained the lease of the land in question which is inundated by water for fisheries purpose, the copy of the plaint of the said suit though is not on record. It is not known as to whether the Gram Sabha and the State have been impleaded therein or not. There is no assertion in the present petition about any fishery lease having been granted to the petitioner with respect to the plots in question, which as per own admission of the petitioner are recorded in the revenue records as "Pond, Pokhar and Bavali". In the said situation, in view of own admission of the petitioner, no exception can be taken to the action of the competent authorities for restoring the land in question to its original position. The relief as prayed for herein cannot be granted. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed." On the basis of the aforementioned orders, the learned Addl. C.S.C. as well as counsel for respondent no.6 submitted that petitioner has concealed the material facts in filing the writ petition, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Counsel for the respondents placed following judgments of Apex Court on the point of concealment of facts:- i) 2007 (8) SCC 449 Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India. ii) 2010 (2) SCC 144 Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. The Apex Court in the case, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 , Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India has held that if the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted hereunder:- "33. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted hereunder:- "33. It is thus clear that though the appellant-Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter." In another case reported in 2010 (2) SCC 114 , Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, the Apex Court has held that litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: "2. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." Counsel for respondent no.6 further submitted that the right has been created by auction/sale in favour of respondent no.6, as such, petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the matter. 7. In reply counsel for the petitioner submitted that Writ-C No. 12706 of 2022 in which order dated 23.5.2022 was passed has been finally disposed of vide order dated 1.7.2022 with direction to revisional court to decide the applications and status quo be maintained till disposal of applications/revision no.-612 of 2022. 7. In reply counsel for the petitioner submitted that Writ-C No. 12706 of 2022 in which order dated 23.5.2022 was passed has been finally disposed of vide order dated 1.7.2022 with direction to revisional court to decide the applications and status quo be maintained till disposal of applications/revision no.-612 of 2022. He further submitted petitioner has disclosed entire facts and annexed the orders in the writ petition as well as supplementary affidavit as such there is no question of concealment of fact by the petitioner. He further submitted that instant writ-petition has been filed for mandamus commanding the commissioner to decide the stay application pending in the proceeding under section 193 of U.P. Revenue Court, 2006 within stipulated period and till then the confirmation of sale be stayed. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that an order for ejectment, passed under Section 136 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as an order for imposition of damages against the petitioner in the proceeding under Section 136 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is in operation. There is also no dispute about the fact that there is no fisheries lease in favour of the petitioner at present, although, in the proceeding under Section 136 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, finding has been recorded that petitioner was not granted any lease at all regarding the pond in question. However, the finding is subject to the pending revision before the revisional court. The earlier petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with strict direction against the petitioner that petitioner is abusing the process of law as the order of damages for rupees more than 1 Cr. passed against the petitioner in respect to the pond in question, has not been given effect to in respect to the pond in question. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner initiated proceeding under section 193 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for setting aside the sale which is pending before commissioner. 10. passed against the petitioner in respect to the pond in question, has not been given effect to in respect to the pond in question. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner initiated proceeding under section 193 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for setting aside the sale which is pending before commissioner. 10. Since there is no valid lease in favour of the petitioner after 1997 and the judgment passed in the proceeding under section 136 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has not been set aside as such petitioner is not entitled to any interim protection unless the order impugned in the proceeding under Section 136 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is set aside/recalled. So far as conduct of petitioner is concern the order passed by this Court on 23.5.2022 in Writ C No.12706/2022, will be relevant for perusal: "Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file an affidavit explaining therein that as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against him, specially in respect of second writ petition as the first writ petition being Writ-C No. 34938 of 2021 has already been dismissed by this Court on 21.2.2022. The aforesaid affidavit be filed within a week from today. It is unfortunate that though an order for recovery of damages has been passed by the S.D.M. on 24.2.2022 but till date no action has been taken in the matter. In the circumstances, S.D.M., concerned and Revenue Authorities are directed to comply with the order passed by S.D.M. dated 24.02.2022 without any further delay. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to seek instructions in the matter. Put up on 30.5.2022 as fresh. Registrar (Judicial) Compliance is directed to place a copy of this order in the record of the suit filed by the petitioner before Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chandauli, being Suit No. 478 of 2016 (Lallan Upadhyay v. Surya Prakash) as well as revision filed by the petitioner before Board of Revenue, Prayagraj being Revision No. 612 of 2022 computerized case no. AL2022141800612 (Lallan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others) on or before 27.5.2022." 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances no interference is required in the matter and petitioner is not entitled to writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus as prayed in the writ petition with respect to proceeding under section 193 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. 12. AL2022141800612 (Lallan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others) on or before 27.5.2022." 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances no interference is required in the matter and petitioner is not entitled to writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus as prayed in the writ petition with respect to proceeding under section 193 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. 12. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.