JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Anoop Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents as well as Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. It will be relevant to notice that another similar petition on almost identical facts, filed by the cousin brothers of the present petitioners, bearing WRIT-C No.7305 of 2024 is also engaging the attention of the Court and the learned standing counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 06.09.2024 under the signatures of Tehsildar, Bangaurmau, District Unnao for perusal of the Court, which has been taken on record of the aforesaid WRIT-C No.7305 of 2024. 3. In light of the controversy involved and the nature of the dispute, this Court with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties is deciding the petition at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit as written instructions are available. 4. The petitioners have approached this Court with the averments that the dispute pertains to Plot No.259 measuring 00.25 hectares, situate in Village Anjanipur, Shivpuri, Paragana-Fatehpur Chaurasi, Tehsil-Safipur, District Unnao. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Plot No.259 having a total area of 17 biswas was reserved for 'abadi'. The petitioners have their house constructed and have been in possession since the time of their father. 6. It is urged that on 30.09.1999, a notice was issued to Hari Shankar, who was the father of the petitioners No.1 to 4 alleging that he was in unauthorized possession of the Gaon Sabha land since last ten years and a penalty of Rs.40,000/-was sought to be imposed. The father of the petitioners contested the said notice and filed his objections that the said land is reserved for 'abadi' in the revenue records and even otherwise, the house situate has been there since the time of his ancestors. In such circumstances, the alleged notice was bad in the eyes of law. A copy of the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar dated 24.10.2000 corroborates the stand of the petitioners. 7. In such circumstances, the alleged notice was bad in the eyes of law. A copy of the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar dated 24.10.2000 corroborates the stand of the petitioners. 7. It is further urged that once the proceedings were taken forward, the Lekhpal had entered into the witness-box and in his cross-examination, he admitted that the said residential house was quite old and the petitioners (earlier their forefathers) were residing therein and he also admitted a fact that he did not measure and survey the Plot No.259. 8. Despite the same, the Assistant Collector, First Class vide its order dated 26.09.2003 passed an order against the father of the petitioners for eviction and even imposed a penalty of Rs.940/-. The said order was challenged by the father of the petitioners by filing a revision dated 22.12.2003, before the Collector, Unnao, however, the revisional Court also did not find favour with the contentions of the father of the petitioners and since there was some difficulty for the father of the petitioners, he could not properly pursue his revision which came to be dismissed by means of the order dated 10.12.2004. 9. The father of the petitioners thereafter assailed the said orders in a Writ Petition No.1287 (M/S) of 2005 wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of its order dated 09.03.2005 allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter for a fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they were not aware of the proceedings after remand made by the High Court and in the last week of May, 2024, they were served with a notice dated 25.05.2024 wherein it was informed to them that vide order dated 26.09.2003, the petitioners were found in unauthorized possession of the Plot No.259, hence, they were to be evicted. Since, the father of the petitioners had died in the year 2021, they did not have knowledge of the earlier proceedings and orders, hence, the petitioners thereafter gathered information, accordingly, have assailed the said order by filing this petition. 11. Since, the father of the petitioners had died in the year 2021, they did not have knowledge of the earlier proceedings and orders, hence, the petitioners thereafter gathered information, accordingly, have assailed the said order by filing this petition. 11. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the matter was remanded by the High Court, the two basic issues which were required to be considered was that the Plot No.259 which was reserved for 'abadi' coupled with the fact that in the cross-examination of Lekhpal, he admitted that he had not measured the Plot No.259, hence, even if at all no worthwhile evidence was led on behalf of the petitioners still it was the duty of the State to prove its case before passing of an order of eviction. 12. It is also submitted that the after the High Court had set aside the orders, there was no fresh measurement nor any proceedings were taken forward. In such circumstances, on the basis of the earlier statement given by the Lekhpal where he admitted that he had not made inspection or measurement, in such circumstances, it could not be said that the land over which the construction of the petitioner exists was naveen parti land especially when not only the house of the petitioners but also other persons of the village are situate. In such circumstances, if it is found that the land of the petitioners is on the naveen parti land then the other houses constructed in the same line, they too come under a scanner. 13. Considering the aforesaid and also perusing the written instructions, provided by the learned standing counsel in WRITC No.7305 of 2024 to ascertain in context with the instant petition any new material was available with the authorities after the High Court had earlier set aside the orders and remanded the matter. 14. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 15. It could not be disputed by the learned standing counsel that when the proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioners, there was a statement of the Lekhpal where he admitted that he had not measured the Plot No.259, a copy of the said statement has been brought on record as Annexure No.6. 16. 15. It could not be disputed by the learned standing counsel that when the proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioners, there was a statement of the Lekhpal where he admitted that he had not measured the Plot No.259, a copy of the said statement has been brought on record as Annexure No.6. 16. Another fact is that the High Court by means of the order dated 09.03.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.1287 (M/S) of 2005 had set aside the earlier order passed by the Assistant Collector, First Class and the revisional Court. 17. In this view of the matter where the earlier orders had been set aside by the High Court and the matter was remanded for decision afresh, it could not be indicated by the learned standing counsel that what was the fresh material upon which it could be ascertained that the petitioners were unlawfully in possession of the property of the Gaon Sabha which was recorded as naveen parti. It was also not explained as to the fact that when the land was reserved for 'abadi' then without taking note of these facts how the findings returned against the father of the petitioners could be sustained and yet again they are being returned. 18. It is also an admitted case that since 2005 when the matter was remanded by the High Court, no fresh inspection was made and there was no fresh report of the Lekhpal. In absence thereof, the authorities could not come to a conclusion that the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of the property in dispute. 19. Needless to say that before passing of the instant impugned order of eviction, it ought to have been noticed that in the earlier round of litigation the orders passed by the Assistant Collector First Class and the revisional Court had been set aside, hence, before coming to the some conclusion that the petitioners were in unauthorized and unlawful possession, at least there ought to be some fresh material. There is no explanation as to how the authorities could have relied upon the old material including the Lekhpal report where he had stated that he had not measured the Plot No.259 and how it could be made as the basis of eviction. 20. That being so, this Court is of the clear view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same are set aside. 20. That being so, this Court is of the clear view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same are set aside. 21. Considering that the matter is pending since long, hence, the Court directs the petitioners as well as State and the Gaon Sabha to be present before the Tehsildar concerned on whose board the proceedings shall stand restored. The parties shall appear on 30.09.2024 and after making a fresh inspection/survey and after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, the matter shall be decided afresh. None of the parties will be at liberty of seeking unnecessary adjournment and in case they do not cooperate in early hearing, the Court shall be justified in passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. 22. It is expected that the Court shall pass a reasoned and a speaking order after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties on the basis of the material on record and in accordance with law. 23. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Costs are made easy.