JUDGMENT : SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. In the present case, a piece of land was being part of two resolutions for allotment of Patta under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which has created a controversy and matter is reached upto this Court. 2. First resolution was adopted on 11.09.1972 and number of beneficiaries were 58. It was challenged before Additional Collector, however, rejected by order dated 10.09.1973. Surprisingly, despite this writ petition is pending for last more than three decades, copy of same was not placed on record. 3. Said order was challenged before Commissioner and a reference dated 10.06.1974 was prepared, however, copy of same is also not on record. Said reference was accepted by Board of Revenue vide order dated 29.04.1977 and revision was dismissed. Copy of order was placed on record by way of filing a supplementary affidavit and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter: “This is a revision petition against the order dated 10.09.1973 passed by Additional Collector, Saharanpur, in a case u/s 198(2) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. No objection has been filed against the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner. I have gone through the record. Agreeing with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner, I dismiss the revision.” 4. During pendency of above revision, said land was again become a subject matter of a subsequent resolution dated 28.12.1975 and number of beneficiaries were 90. Said resolution was challenged, however, except that some of the beneficiaries were removed from list on the ground that they were not qualified, rest of resolution was upheld vide order dated 30.03.1978. Surprisingly, earlier resolution dated 11.09.1972 as well as proceedings referred above which reached till Board of Revenue, were not even referred in said order. 5. Above referred order dated 30.03.1978 was challenged and a reference dated 15.07.1981 was made. Relevant part of the order dated 30.03.1978 and reference dated 15.07.1981 is reproduced hereinafter: Relevant part of order dated 30.03.1978: Relevant part of order dated 15.07.1981: 6. Thereafter, Board of Revenue accepted the reference and revision was allowed vide order dated 24.04.1992 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: 7. Aforesaid orders are challenged before this Court at the behest of petitioners, i.e., as many as 64 beneficiaries of subsequent resolution. 8. Thereafter, Board of Revenue accepted the reference and revision was allowed vide order dated 24.04.1992 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: 7. Aforesaid orders are challenged before this Court at the behest of petitioners, i.e., as many as 64 beneficiaries of subsequent resolution. 8. This Court vide order dated 03.02.1993 directed that writ petitioners will not be dispossessed from land in dispute in pursuance of impugned order. 9. Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that earlier resolution dated 11.09.1972 was void ab initio since it was neither approved nor it was acted upon, whereas proceedings arising out of subsequent resolution dated 28.12.1975 were not only with prior approval but it was acted upon so much as that allotted land was handed over to its beneficiaries, i.e. atleast to the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners further referred few paragraphs of counter affidavit filed by State-Respondents that it was admitted that a meeting of Land Management Committee of concerned Gaon Sabha was conducted on 11.09.1972 but it was not approved. Learned counsel also submitted that equity is in favour of petitioners as their possession is protected since 1975 and even by this Court for last more than three decades. 11. Per contra, Sri Rajeev Sisodia as well as Sri Girish Chandra Shukla, Advocates for contesting-respondents, submitted that once the earlier resolution dated 11.09.1972 was got confirmed upto Board of Revenue, Gaon Sabha was not empowered to put the said land for the purpose of allotment of Patta again and he referred relevant paragraphs of impugned orders dated 15.07.1981 and 24.09.1992, which were passed on same reasons. They further submitted that question of equity will rise only if subsequent resolution dated 28.12.1975 was legally adopted, however, the facts as referred above and noted in impugned orders, the said exercise of allotment was void ab initio. 12. Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-Respondents, has not denied that resolution dated 11.09.1972 was adopted but it was not approved in accordance with law, however, he also referred later part of counter affidavit that legal position, so far as no subsequent resolution could be adopted of the same land when earlier resolution was specifically stated and that it was rightly upheld by impugned orders and that in subsequent part of counter affidavit the averments of writ petition were specifically denied. 13. 13. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 14. The Court has heard this matter in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution which undisputedly not only a Court of law but it is a Court having extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction also. 15. As referred above, a challenged to earlier resolution dated 11.09.1972 got failed and it was upheld up to Board of Revenue by order dated 29.04.1977 which has attained finality, therefore, without taking note of it a subsequent resolution for allotment of land and consequent granting possession on face of it was erroneous. 16. The question, whether earlier resolution was ever approved, could not be looked into without challenge to it. However even in such circumstances a fact remained undisputed that subsequent resolution was admittedly approved and possession was handed over to its beneficiaries atleast to the petitioners and is being protected for last three and half decades on basis of an interim order of this Court, whereas admittedly no possession was handed over to beneficiaries in pursuance of earlier resolution. 17. In these circumstances this Court has to balance equity between petitioners’ possession which is protected for last many decades without any dispute as they are eligible persons for allotment though procedure might not be proper and the earlier resolution which was upheld upto the Board of Revenue but no possession was handed over to its beneficiaries i.e. admittedly not acted upon. Therefore, the Court is of considered opinion that at this stage, in case petitioners are dispossessed they will be more prejudiced and will suffer irreparable loss in comparison to the beneficiaries of earlier resolution, who were never put into possession of allotted land. 18. At this stage, the Court refers relevant part of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another vs. Bikartan Das and others, 2023 INSC 733 that in extraordinary circumstances the High Court under writ jurisdiction may exercise equitable jurisdiction in the interest of justice would be relevant and it’s Para 51 is, therefore, reproduced hereinafter: “51. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. In aforesaid circumstances, equitable jurisdiction of this Court is being exercised and possession of petitioners only is protected. Impugned judgment and orders dated 24.09.1992 and 15.07.1981 are interfered and accordingly set aside. However, it is directed that State will conduct a fresh allotment proceedings and will include contesting- respondents, if still they are eligible for allotment under relevant provisions, including others also. Said exercise will be concluded within a period of six months from today, if there is no legal impediment. 20. With aforesaid observations/ directions, this writ petition is disposed of.