JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner claims benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
3. None of the authorities below recorded finding whether petitioner is an agricultural labourer. The Board of Revenue after considering the entire material on record remanded matter to the Trial court to determine whether petitioner is an agricultural labourer as defined under Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
4. The order of remand was rightly passed in accordance with law. Now the petitioner will get full opportunity to establish that he is entitled to get benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R Act.
5. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 2003 (94) R.D. 538 Manorey @ Manohar v. Board of Revenue and Ors. also supports the order of the Board of Revenue. This judgment also makes it clear that the relief could only be granted to a person, if it is established that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and is an agricultural labourer.
6. There was no finding of the authorities below that petitioner is an agricultural labourer. The report of the Lekhpal too states that petitioner belongs to Dhobi Caste, but this report does not state that petitioner is an landless agricultural labourer. The case law cited by the petitioner will support the order of Board of Revenue.
7. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the Trial court shall decide the matter expeditiously.
8. With above direction, writ petition is finally disposed of.