Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33838 of 2021 Petitioner :- Saudagar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and the learned Standing Counsel.
Challenge in the present petition is the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial/Second), Varanasi Region, Varanasi (Respondent no. 2).
Grievance of the petitioner is that that Additional Commissioner has illegally remitted the matter before the trial court to decide the case filed under Section 32/38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in brevity 'Code, 2006'), de novo, whereas no case of correction is made out with respect to the long standing entry in the revenue record.
It is culled out from the averments made in the present petition that Khichadu Ram-respondent no. 5 has moved an application for correction in revenue record under Section 32/38 of the Code, 2006, challenging the revenue entry continuing in the name of the petitioner. Aforesaid application was decided by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 10.10.2018. Having been aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal which was allowed, vide impugned order dated 22.11.2021, and the parties were relegated before the trial court to decide the case de novo on merits, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. It is submitted that entry in favour of the petitioner is long standing entry which cannot be deleted/corrected in a summary proceeding under Section 32/38 of the Code, 2006.
On the contrary, counsel for Gaon Sabha as well as Standing Counsel contended that opportunity is still open to the petitioner to redress his grievances and raise all possible objections before the trial court, which have been raised in the present petition.
I find force in the submissions made by counsel for Gaon Sabha as well as Standing Counsel.
The Appellate Court has simply remitted the matter before the trial court to decide the correction application moved by respondent no. 5, de novo, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The petitioner has full opportunity to raise all objections in support of his defence before the trial court to support the long standing entry which is still continuing in his name. Nothing has been demonstrated as to what prejudice caused to the petitioner and how the order suffers from miscarriage of justice by remanding the matter. There is no illegality, perversity and ambiguity in the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2.
Present writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 VR/