Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6207 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shayam Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Pratap Singh,Sunita Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The petitioner claims that he is owner of plot no.55 area 1.512 hectare situated in Mauja Siddha Pargana Vijaygarh, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra.
His grievance is that under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 the authbority concerned had fixed his boundary but the private respondent nos. 4 to 6 have disturbed the same. The petitioner has put forward his grievance by way of an application dated 03.07.2018, whereupon the Sub- Divisional Officer, respondent no.3 vide his order dated 03.10.2018 asked the Revenue Inspector to submit a report. Pursuant thereto the Revenue Inspector has submitted a report dated 14.10.2018 stating therein that the grievance of the petitioner raised against the respondent nos. 4 to 6 is correct. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not passed any order on the application of the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus by issuing a direction upon the respondent no.3 to decide his application.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (for short Code, 2006) provides that the dispute regarding the boundary shall be considered by the Sub-Divisional Office. Chapter IV of the Code, 2006 deals with the boundaries and boundary marks. Section 21 of the Code, 2006 casts an obligation upon the tenure holders regarding maintenance and repair of the boundary marks. Section 22 of the Code, 2006 provides that in case the boundary and boundary marks are destroyed by any person, the Naib Tehsildar shall make an enquiry and submit a recommendation to the Sub-Divisional Officer.
The petitioner has made an application under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. However, after the repeal of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, some of the provisions of the said Act has been incorporated under the Code, 2006.
After perusal of the record, we are of the view that Section 24 of the Code, 2006 casts statutory obligation upon the Sub- Divisional Officer to decide the dispute regarding the boundaries between the tenure holders. The petitioner has raised his grievance by way of an application but no action has been taken so far by the Sub-Divisional Officer. We are not issuing the notices to the private respondents as we are protecting their interest.
The matter is taken on the Board for final disposal in terms of the Rules of the Court.
Having due regard that the petitioner has put forward his grievance in his application and comment has been submitted by the Revenue Inspector, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent no.3 to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's application in accordance with law after furnishing an opportunity to the respondent nos.5 and 6. The said exercise shall be undertaken by the respondent no.3 within three months from the date of communication of this order.
Needless to say that we have not examined the merit of the case. The authority concerned shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 MAA/-