Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15471 of 2018 Petitioner :- Lachhiman Yadav and another Respondent :- State of U.P. and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shambhavi Nandan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Shambhavi Nandan, learned Counsel for the petitioners; Sri B.B.Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 9.1.2018 passed by the second respondent, Chief Revenue Officer/ Additional Collector, Varanasi and the order dated 5.9.2015 passed by the third respondent, Assistant Collector (First Class)/Tehsildar, Sadar, Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the order dated 5.9.2015 has been challenged by the petitioners in the revision in question inadvertently as per the provision contained under Section 333 of UP ZA&LR Act (in short, the Act) on the bonafide mistake of the learned counsel representing the petitioners before the revisional authority. The revisional authority has dismissed the revision vide order dated 9.1.2018 on the ground that instead of filing the aforesaid revision under section 122-B (4-A) of Act, the petitioners have filed the said revision under Section 333 of Act, which is not maintainable. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners states that on account of fault of the Advocate, the petitioners should not be deprived of their right to file the revision as per the provision contained under section 122-B(4-A) of the Act. The request has been made that the matter may be relegated to the revisional authority for deciding the matter afresh.
On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel very fairly states that for doing substantial justice, in case matter may be relegated to the revisional authority to decide the same on the merits of the case, he has no objection.
In view of this, the impugned order dated 9.1.2018 cannot sustain and the same is accordingly set aside.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the revisional authority to hear the revision as fresh treating the same to have been filed under Section 122-
B(4-A) of the Act and decide the same strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost Order Date :- 30.4.2018 RKP