Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2313 of 2019 Petitioner :- Prabhat Narayan Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Saran Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Upadhyay, holding brief of Sri Sharad Saran Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.
This writ petition has been filed seeking the following material relief and no other:
"(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1/Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad to decide Revision No.1180 of 2016 (Rajaram and others Vs. Hargun and others) within stipulated period."
It appears that respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed an application under Section 198(4) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, seeking cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner. The said application was dismissed by the Collector, Kaushambi vide order dated 07.06.2016, passed in Case No.86 of 2016. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed a Revision to the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The grievance of the petitioner, who has purchased the land in dispute and has become owner on account of the enlarged rights of the patta holders, which appears to be the case, is that the proceedings of the Revision are lingering on since the year 2016, causing substantial prejudice to the petitioner's rights in the land in dispute.
The Court has perused the order-sheet. The Revision is indeed pending since the year 2016 and a number of dates have been casually fixed, though on some dates, orders showing proceedings taken have been recorded. Be it as it may, a Revision arising out of patta cancellation matter ought not be kept pending so long and this Revision is pending since the past three years approximately.
In view of the nature of the order that this Court propose to pass, no notice is being issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, inasmuch as no determination of rights is being made here. However, in case the said respondent Nos. 2 and 3 feel aggrieved by this order, it will be open to them to make an application in the decided petition.
Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad is ordered to decide Revision No. 1180 of 2016 Rajaram and others Vs. Hargun and others in accordance with law after hearing all parties concerned within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
This writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 NSC