Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1768 of 2015 Petitioner :- Kusum Lata Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Allahabad And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Janardan Prasad Tripathi,Rajesh Kumar Bind Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Madan Mohan,Prem Sagar Verma
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.10.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as, 'Board of Revenue') in Revision No. 3 of 2013-14 whereby the Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra (hereinafter referred to as, 'Additional Commissioner').
The facts of the case are that a sale-deed was executed by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 is a member of the scheduled caste community and therefore an application was filed by the petitioner that the aforesaid sale-deed was hit by Section 157-AA of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') and was void by virtue of Section 163 of the Act, 1950 and therefore, under Section 167 of the Act, 1950, the land vested in the Gaon Sabha.
Notices were issued to the respondents in the aforesaid case, but the said notices were withdrawn on the ground that the respondents had obtained permission of the concerned Collector before executing the second sale- deed. Notices were discharged by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Firozabad vide his order dated 31.5.2010. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was allowed by order dated 22.10.2013 and the appellate court held that the land shall vest in the Gaon Sabha. The revision filed by the respondents before the Board of Revenue, i.e., Revision No.
3 of 2013-14 against the order of the appellate court has been allowed by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 9.10.2014 and the order of the Additional Commissioner has been set aside on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable before the Additional Commissioner.
The counsel for the petitioner did not raise any argument challenging the opinion of the Board of Revenue regarding the maintainability of the appeal. Apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order as she has no proprietary interest in the land. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Anurag/-