JUDGMENT Arun Tondon, J.
1. Heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Vimlesh Kumar Advocate on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and 10 to 14 and Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 18.
2. Petitioner, Sheo Kumar, has filed this writ petition against the order dated 17.07.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Naraini, district Banda in case No. 33 of 2002 in proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. By means of the said order the Sub Divisional Officer Naraini has held that the names of Sri Shyam Lal son of Laxmi Prasad, Bachoo and Maikoo sons of Ram Das, Badi alias Ram Sikhiya widow of Ram Das, Santosh and Sant Ram sons of Ram Kumar residents of village Bhakhuri are to be recorded in the relevant revenue records in compliance of the order dated 07.01.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi which has since been affirmed by the Board of Revenue at Allahabad by order dated 20th May, 1997.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is a void order inasmuch as the respondents are residents of Madhya Pradesh and therefore no Patta could have been executed in their favour under Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act. Even otherwise it is contended that the order is arbitrary and it is a clear case of non-application of mind inasmuch as the earlier order dated 22.04.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer which was based on the reports of revenue authorities has not been taken into consideration. Lastly it is contended that the Patta holders had illegally transferred the said property to a third set of persons. The Patta holders themselves had no right and therefore the transfer deed executed by them is null and void and is liable to be quashed.
4. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is only in the nature of execution of the order dated 07.01.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in the proceedings which were under taken for cancellation of the Patta granted in favour of the persons concerned. The said order passed by the Commissioner has since been affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 20.05.1997. The said orders dated 07.01.1997 and 20.05.1997 passed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue respectively have not been challenged by any aggrieved party and the same have become final. The petitioner who is only an allottee of Gaon Sabha cannot be permitted to raise the controversy all over again. Lastly it is contended that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever if the land has been transferred by the Patta holders and no right of the petitioner has been affected and therefore he has no right to file this writ petition. The present writ petition is an abuse of the process of the Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is apparently clear that the petitioner, except for making vague allegations in para 3 that the respondents fictitiously got their names recorded in the revenue records, has not made any reference to the proceedings which had taken place in respect of the cancellation of the Patta of the respondents-3rd set. The facts in that regard are born out from the order of the Sub Divisional Officer which has been challenged in the present writ petition, which read as follows:-
^^i=koyh ij miyC/k ekuuh; vij vk;qDr] fp=dwV /kke e.My] ckank ds vkns'k fnukad 10&6&2003 ds voyksdu ls irk pyrk gS fd vij dysDVj foRr @ jktLo] ckank ds U;k;ky; esa iVVk fujLrhdj.k dk okn nk;j fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj vij dysDVj }kjk fnukad 30&1&96 dks iVVs fujLr dj fn;s x;s Fks A bl vkns'k ds fo:) ekuuh; vk;qDr] >kalh e.My] >kalh ds U;k;ky;
esa fuxjkuh ;ksftr dh xbZ Fkh A ekuuh; vk;qDr] >kalh e.My] >kalh }kjk vius vkns'k fnukad 7&1&97 ds vUrxZr vij ftykf/kdkjh fo- @ jk- ckank ds vkns'k fnukad 30&1&96 dks fujLr fd;s tkus rFkk iz'uxr fuxjkuh dks Lohdkj djds fuxjkuhdrkZx.k ds iVVs cgky j[ks tkus dh laLrqfr lfgr izdj.k ek- jktLo dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k Fkk A ek- jktLo ifj"kn] bykgkckn ds vkns'k fnukad 20&5&97 }kjk ekuuh; vk;qDr] >kalh e.My] >kalh dh laLrqfr fnukad 7&1&97 ls iw.kZr% lger gksrs gq, vij dysDVj fo- @ jk-] ckank ds vkns'k fnukafd 30&1&96 dks fujLr djrs gq, fuxjkuh drkZx.k ds i{k essa fd;k x;k Hkwfe dk iVVk ;Fkkor dk;e ,oa cgky jD[kk x;k gS A**
6. The aforesaid proceedings were not subjected to any further challenge. So far as the allotment of Patta is concerned the same stood final between respondents-3rd set and the Gaon Sabha who were contesting parties in said proceedings. Even in the present writ petition the order dated 07.01.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and the order dated 20.05.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue have not been challenged nor any relief in that regard has been prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The controversy with regard to grant of Patta to the respondents-3rd set having become final between the parties under the provisions of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, as aforesaid, the petitioners cannot be permitted to reopen the settled controversy for the first time in the present writ petition on new grounds, namely that the 3rd set of respondents are residents of Madhya Pradesh.
7. It is not necessary to adjudicate the contention raised by the petitioner that no Patta could have been granted to the respondents-3rd set who reside outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, as in the writ petition there is no allegation that at the time of grant of Patta the allottees were residing in Madhya Pradesh. The Patta was executed in the year 1994-95 while this writ petition has been filed after 8 years in 2003.
8. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the transfer deed executed by the Patta holders in favour of other persons is void as the rights granted by the Patta are not transferable. The said question cannot be a matter of adjudication by this Court at the behest of the petitioner. In the opinion of the Court no rights of the petitioner have been adversely affected by the transfer of the Patta land, if any, made by the allottees, nor the writ petition is a proper remedy for such a relief.
9. The last contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is based on non-consideration of the earlier order passed by the same authority dated 22.04.2002 is also a clear case of statement of half facts, only. Admittedly the order dated 22.04.2002 was subjected to challenge before the Commissioner by the respondents by filing a revision. The revision so filed was allowed by the Commissioner vide order dated 10.06.2003 and the order dated 22.04.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was set aside, reference para 9 of the writ petition. The question of referring to the order dated 22.04.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer which had already been set aside by the Commissioner does not arise and therefore no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Sub Divisional Officer while passing the impugned order dated 17.07.2003.
10. It is also worthwhile to mention that although in para 9 of the writ petition it has been stated that the Commissioner had set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 22.04.2002 vide order dated 10.06.2003 (mentioned by the petitioner as dated 16.06.2003), deliberately neither copy of the said order has been filed nor any relief in that regard has been prayed for in the writ petition.
11. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases of (i) Shobha Ram v. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (97) RD 178, and (ii) Asad Ahmad and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2002 ACJ 1143.
12. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable and none of the aforesaid judgments are applicable in the present case. It may be pointed out that in the case of Shobha Ram v. State of U.P. (supra) the allotment of Patta granted from the back date, in an irregular manner and obtained on the basis of fictitious papers was cancelled. In the present case the grant of Patta in favour of 3rd set of respondents has already been approved and affirmed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, said issue cannot be re-opened. In the case of Asad Ahmad and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (supra) allotment of land belonging to forest department was cancelled on the ground of wrong entry in the records with regards to the nature of land as 'new parti'.
The writ petition is dismissed.