Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42011 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pushpa Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
Pursuant to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners during consolidation proceedings, the name of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue record. An order under Section 6 (1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act') was passed and consolidation proceedings were cancelled. However, under Section 6 (2) of the Act once the name of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue record, they continued but by the impugned order dated 20th November, 2018, the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) has passed an order purported to be under Section 32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code, 2006") for correcting the records and deleting the name of the petitioners from the revenue record. While passing the said order, an observation has also been made that a case may be registered under appropriate proceeding under appropriate section, but without giving any opportunity to the petitioners, an order under Section 32 of the Code, 2006 appears to have been passed.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the name was entered into the revenue record fraudulently and, therefore, for correcting of the record, the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) has rightly passed the order deleting the name of the petitioners. In case, the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they can approach the Commissioner by filing revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006.
That being the case, it does appear that before passing the order under Section 32 of the Code, 2006, no opportunity was given to the petitioners. However, it is also apparent that petitioners have remedy for fling revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006.
The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that petitioners will file revision before the appropriate authority under Section 210 of the Code, 2006, within 15 days from today and authority concerned will decide the revision, in accordance with law, without unnecessarily delay.
It is further directed that till any orders are passed by the Additional Commissioner or Board of Revenue, as the case may be, the order dated 20th November, 2018 shall be kept in abeyance. However, the petitioner shall not alienate the property or create any third party right.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Ajeet (Vivek Varma, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)