Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1022 of 2021 Petitioner :- Raj Kishore Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Achal Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.5-Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1 to 4.
Challenge in the present writ petition is order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue (in brevity ‘B.O.R.’) (respondent no.2) by which matter has been remitted before the authority concerned.
From the record it reveals that instant writ petition is arising out of order passed under Section 166/167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in brevity 'U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act'). In pursuance of registered sale deed dated 21.04.1999 executed by Chhanguwa (respondent no.6), Maheshwar Datta had moved mutation application to record his name in place of Chhanguwa. Lekhpal has submitted report raising question about the validity of sale deed owing to execution by a persons belonging to Scheduled Caste in favour of Brahmin. Consequently, land in question was ordered to be vested in State, vide order dated 24.09.2001 passed by Sub Divisional Magistate, Karvi (in brevity 'S.D.M.') (respondent no.3). Subsequently, on the restoration moved by respondent no.6, order dated 24.09.2001 was recalled and matter was restored vide order dated 22.12.2001. After restoration, fresh order dated 10.05.2002 was passed by respondent no.3 in favour of respondent no.6. At a very belated stage, present petitioner has moved a miscellaneous application dated 19.03.2015 (Annexure-7) before the respondent no.3 for issuing direction to the District Government Counsel (Revenue) (in brevity 'D.G.C.R.') to reopen the earlier matter, which was decided in favour of respondent no.6. Subsequently, petitioner has moved another application dated 06.05.2015. On the aforesaid applications, respondent no.3 has registered as miscellaneous case no.10 and passed an interim order dated 11.06.2015 (Annexure-8) directing the parties to maintain status quo on the spot. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no.6 has filed a revision before the respondent no.2 against order dated 11.06.2015. Aforesaid revision was allowed vide impugned order dated 22.03.2021 passed by respondent no.2, quashing the order dated 11.06.2015 with a direction that Court concerned should decide the maintainability of the application, first, moved by petitioner, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the respondent no.2 by which matter has been remitted before the authority concerned to decide the maintainability of the miscellaneous application in accordance with law.
Board of Revenue has rightly raised doubt qua maintainability of highly belated miscellaneous applications dated 19.03.2015/06.05.2015 filed against the order dated 10.05.2002 and bonafides of the applicant/petitioner. It is also a matter of examination as to how he is aggrieved with the order dated 10.05.2002 and what locus he has got to challenge the said order. I do not find any illegality, perversity or error in the order passed by the respondent no.2 who has rightly remitted the matter before the respondent no.3 to decide the maintainability of the application and locus of the applicant/petitioner to move the same.
In the above conspectus, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned remand order passed by the respondent no.2, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both the parties still have an opportunity of hearing to ventilate their grievances before the authority concerned. Nothing has been decided finally by the respondent no.2.
Present writ petition is devoid of merits and it is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Manish Himwan