Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4876 of 2018 Petitioner :- Uttam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Ramesh Pundir,Rekha Pundir
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Pundir on behalf of respondents nos. 6 to 8.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue U.P., ciruit Bench at Meerut in Revision No. 67/Z M/2014-15 as well as the order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Revision No. 97/2013-14, whereby, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Board of Revenue affirming the order passed by the Additional Commissioner.
It is apparent from the record that by the order of the SDM dated 18.05.2011 the petitioner was extended the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the UPZA and LR (Act No. 1 of 1951) and was declared Bhumidhar by the SDM on his application without taking recourse to any proceeding under Section 122B (4F) of the UPZA and LR Act.
Against the said order, a recall application was filed by the contesting respondents 6 to 8 on the ground they were the allottees of the land in dispute and therefore the order dated 18.05.2011 has been passed without hearing them and even without impleading them as a party. The application filed by the contesting respondents for recall was rejected by the S.D.M. vide order dated 27.06.2014. Against that order, the revision was filed before the Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut which was subsequently transferred to the Additional Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut who vide order dated 27.07.2015 allowed the revision, setting aside the order dated 27.06.2014 and matter was remanded back to the SDM to decide the matter afresh after giving proper opportunity to the parties. Challenging the order dated 27.07.2015, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, UP at Allahabad which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.04.2018.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue as well as the Additional Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut have committed illegality in passing the impugned order as the petitioner being a Scheduled Caste, was entitled to the benefits under the provisions of Section 122B (4F) of the UPZA and LR Act and the application for recall has rightly been rejected by the S.D.M.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submits that the said order was obtained by the petitioners by misrepresentation of facts and even no application for extending the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the UPZA and LR Act was maintainable independently without any proceeding initiated by the Gram Sabha for ejectment under Section 122B of the UPZA and LR Act.
I have considered the argument of both the parties and perused the records.
The order dated 18.05.2011 shows that the same has been passed independently without taking recourse to any proceeding under Section 122B of the UPZA and LR Act.
The recall application was filed by the contesting respondents on the grounds that they were not heard while passing the order, their application was rejected by SDM without considering the fact that the respondent who claimed to be the allottee over the disputed land, has not been heard. The revision has rightly been allowed by the Additional Commissioner remitting the matter to the SDM for deciding the claim of the parties afresh after hearing them. The said order was affirmed by the revisional authority.
Admittedly, the order dated 18.05.2011 is an ex-parte order. By the orders impugned, the matter has been remanded to the S.D.M. for decision afresh after hearing the parties.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of remand.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 sweta