Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5456 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nanhku Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Umang Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that as many as six mutation cases were filed under Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act. These cases were ordered to be consolidated in accordance with the provisions of Section 225-F of the UP Revenue Code while the application should have been under Section 192-A of the UP Land Revenue Act.
Against this order consolidating, the petitioner is stated to have been filed a recall as also a revision. On the recall application the order was modified but the revision was allowed.
However, a fresh order was passed for consolidating the cases which order has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.09.2018.
In my considered opinion, all the cases pertaining to mutation which are between the parties and pertain to the same land are necessarily required to be heard and decided together. Merely because this order has been passed relying upon a wrong provision of law, I do not consider it a ground for interference especially while exercising equity jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.
In my considered opinion, substantial justice has been done by the order impugned and, therefore, no interference is called for.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Priyanka