JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Shri Ravi Shankar Mishra, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting private respondents no.3. 2. In furtherance of the order dated 04.12.2024, Shri Shailendra Kumar Verma, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Prathagarh is present before the Court alongwith the original record. 3. The order dated 04.12.2024 is being reproduced hereinafter to put the matter in a perspective:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Under challenge is the order dated 17.10.2023 as well as order dated 05.02.2024. As an impact of the aforesaid two orders, it is urged that the petitioner had filed proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which came to be allowed in favour of the petitioner on 29.06.2021. Thereafter, the private respondents moved an application for recall on 05.07.2021 and it is urged that while the said restoration application was pending the same came to be allowed by the order dated 17.10.2023, whereas the matter was not heard on the said date and the record would indicate that the matter was last listed on 13.10.2023 fixing 17.10.2023. Thereafter, a detailed order was passed on 17.10.2023 allowing the recall application fixing 18.11.2023 and thereafter the matter went on for certain dates and ultimately on 05.02.2024, the proceedings of the petitioner under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was dismissed as not maintainable. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has brought on record the certified copy of the extract of the cause list dated 05.02.2024 to indicate that his case was not listed, whether it is also stated that once the matter was adjourned on 13.10.2023 for 17.10.2023 and the next date fixed was 18.11.2023, in the meantime, the order impugned allowing the restoration application of the private respondents was allowed without hearing the petitioner and it is attempted to be urged that there is manipulation in the order sheet only to grant undue benefit to the contesting respondents. Before issuance of notice, this Court is of the opinion that it will be appropriate to examine the original records, accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District-Pratapgarh shall appear in person before this Court with the original records on 6th December, 2024. List this matter on 6th December, 2024 as fresh." 4. From the perusal of the record which has been made available, it indicates that the proceedings were initiated under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which came to be allowed (even though ex-parte) in favour of the petitioner on 29.06.2021. 5. The record further indicates that a recall application was moved by the respondent No.3, namely, Nawab Ali, on 05.07.2021 and he respondent No.3 is represented before this Court by Shri Ravi Shankar Mishra, Advocate. 6. From a perusal of the original record, it indicates that the matter was listed on 13.10.2023 on which date apparently there is no order except mentioning of the next date i.e. 17.10.2023. Thereafter, the order-sheet indicates that on 17.10.2023, the case was put up and a detailed typed order was passed which is being annexed with the main order sheet. 7. At this stage, what is relevant to notice is from a perusal of the typed order dated 17.10.2023, the matter was next listed on 24.11.2023, however, the order-sheet which is available on record reveals a different picture inasmuch as on 17.10.2023 the hand written order also indicates that the next date was 18.11.2023. 8. The scanned copy of the order-sheet is being reproduced hereinafter. 9. The scanned order-sheet would also indicates that on 18.11.2023, the next date fixed was 27.11.2023. Thereafter, the matter came up before the Court on 15.12.2023. The texture of the order dated 15.10.2023 indicates that the petitioner was present. The defendant (referring to the person who had moved the recall application i.e. referable to the respondent No.3 herein) was not present. Thereafter it indicates that none was present to press the application and the matter on behalf of the petitioner was heard fixing 18.12.2023 as a next date for order. 10. Surprisingly, there is no order-sheet at all from 18.12.2023 onwards and the only other order which is available on record is the order dated 05.02.2024 which has been passed and the same reads under:- 11. 10. Surprisingly, there is no order-sheet at all from 18.12.2023 onwards and the only other order which is available on record is the order dated 05.02.2024 which has been passed and the same reads under:- 11. From the perusal of the order dated 15.10.2023 and 05.02.2024, it would indicate that both are quite in contrast with the order dated 15.12.2023 and by which the petition came to be dismissed. 12. This is again one of those cases where the manner in which the judicial proceedings are being done by the revenue courts including drawing up of order sheet and various discrepancies arising therefrom have come to light. 13. This issue has been flagged by this Court in several cases and even though the copy of the orders passed by this Court was marked to the Principal Secretary (Revenue), State of U.P., Lucknow, yet, it appears that it is not having the desired effect rather the provisions as contained in the U.P. Revenue Manual Code and other revenue related laws such as the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Rules framed thereunder, U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 and the like are being flouted with impunity. 14. Shri Shailendra Kumar Verma, the officer before the Court was put with a query regarding the aforesaid aspect of the matter to which he has stated that he has only joined and taken charge of the Court on 23.09.2024 while Shri Udai Bhan Singh, the earlier officer has now superannuated on 23.09.2024. 15. So far as the officer present before this Court is concerned, the entire matted in which the order-sheets have been drawn and the orders have been passed, relates to a time prior to his tenure. However, he is cautioned that he shall ensure that all judicial proceedings in his Court will be done in accordance with law. 16. Now the issue before this Court is the fact where after 15.12.2023, there is no order-sheet on record and the only other order that came to be passed was on 05.02.2024 almost after two months which is in contradiction to the tenor of the order dated 15.12.2023, which is apparently cannot be justified. 17. 16. Now the issue before this Court is the fact where after 15.12.2023, there is no order-sheet on record and the only other order that came to be passed was on 05.02.2024 almost after two months which is in contradiction to the tenor of the order dated 15.12.2023, which is apparently cannot be justified. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that even though he may have a case which can be agitated on merits, but in so far as the manner in which the court proceedings have been held for which he has no role to play and he does not even defend the said order. 18. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and also noticing the conduct of the petitioner which is also not quite prompt inasmuch as admittedly the petitioner was represented on 15.12.2023 and he was aware of the fact that the next date fixed is fixed as 18.12.2023 and since then he did not find any time to ascertain how the proceedings were taken forwarded and this petition came up before this Court for the first time on 04.12.2024. Thus, apparently for the period 18.12.2023 till the date the petition was filed in the Registry of this Court, the petitioner kept quite. Nothing has been shown on the record as to what due diligence was done by the petitioner when he did not get any notice of the order passed in pursuance of the hearing that took place on 15.12.2024. Even if at all the order was passed on 05.02.2024 even then there is nothing on record except silence on the part of the petitioner as to what he has been doing since then. 19. Be that as it may the fact remains that the proceedings have not been done in an appropriate manner and the order impugned dated 05.02.2024 cannot be sustained also for an additional reason that even as per Regulation 34-F of the U.P. Revenue Manual Code any order which are to be passed should be done within 30 days and if not then a fresh dates has to be fixed for re-hearing which has not been done. 20. 20. What as is evident from the record before this Court is the fact that not only that the order came to be passed on 05.02.2024, but there is no order-sheet indicating that from 18.12.2024 what was the stage or the status of the proceedings till the order dated 05.02.2024 came to be passed. 21. This apparently creates doubt on the veracity and the sanctity of the order and apparently in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it cannot be ignored. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the said order which is patently erroneous, accordingly, the same is set aside. Since, the contesting parties are also before this Court and the respondent No.4 had not filed any application for recall, hence, he cannot be prejudiced by the order passed today nor there is any requirement to issue notice to him as the contesting parties i.e. the petitioner and the private-respondent No.3 are duly represented. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The proceedings shall stand restored before the Court concerned who after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the matter afresh preferably within a period of six weeks from the date the parties appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned on 17.12.2024. 23. A copy of this order shall also be placed before the Principal Secretary (Revenue) flagging these issues which are cropping up with frequency which is not desirable and it actually reflects the sorry state of affairs which are prevalent in the revenue Courts. It is expected that the Principal Secretary (Revenue) shall take a serious view and do take action as desired to stem the rot. 24. Before parting with the matter, it may also be noticed that in this country we have a large agrarian economy and large populace of this country is based out of the villages. 25. Issues relating to mutation, demarcation are such which are mundane and do crop up so frequently and if this is the manner in which the officers manning the revenue Court discharge their functions it raises a serious issue. 25. Issues relating to mutation, demarcation are such which are mundane and do crop up so frequently and if this is the manner in which the officers manning the revenue Court discharge their functions it raises a serious issue. The duty of the Government is to ensure that faith of the public is restored and rather enhanced in the proceedings rather than to create a situation which erodes which apart from the fact that it would be against the Constitutional mandate, but it would also be lead to anarchy. A solemn hope is expressed by the Court that the Government shall take note of it and ensure that the rule of law is upheld. 26. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed, however, the petitioner shall deposit a cost of Rs.5000/- with the concerned District Legal Services Authority within two weeks. and in case if it is not deposited by the petitioner, then the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner. The original records shall be handed over to Shri Upendra Singh, learned standing Counsel.