Ravindra v. State Of U.P. & Ors

affirming the order dated 31.07.2008 (Annexure-6) passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut Division, Meerut, (respondent no. 3), arising out of order dated 30.06.2006 (Annexure-5) passed by Sub- Divisional Officer, Saradhana (respondent no. 4) in a proceeding under Section 41 of the L.R. Act. Facts culled out from the averment made in the instant writ petition are that an application has been filed by respondent no. 5 and 6, Ranveer Singh and Dinesh Kumar, under Section 41 of the L.R. Act for demarcation of plot No. 395 which was allowed, vide order dated

18.12.2004, on the basis of report dated 22.09.2004 submitted by Revenue Inspector. Against this order, petitioner along with his brother have preferred appeal which were allowed, vide order dated 09.11.2005 passed by respondent no. 3, remitting the matter before the trial court for fresh consideration of application under Section 41 of the L. R. Act after calling for fresh report from the Revenue Authorities. After remand of the matter, Revenue Inspector has submitted report dated 28.02.2006. Against said report some of the affected tenure holders have filed objection. After considering the aforesaid report and objections thereon, Sub Divisional Officer has passed the order dated 30.06.2006 accepting the report dated

28.02.2006. Having being aggrieved against the order dated 30.06.2006, petitioner and other persons have preferred two appeals before the respondent no. 3, being Appeal No. 11/2005-06 and Appeal No. 13/2005-06, which have been dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2008. Board of Revenue, on revision being filed on behalf of petitioner and his brothers, has affirmed the order passed by respondent No. 3 vide it's order dated 12.11.2021. As such, instant writ petition has been filed being aggrieved against the orders passed by all three revenue Courts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the order dated 28.06.2006 an objection was filed on behalf of petitioner which has not been considered by respondent no. 4 before passing order dated 30.06.2006. Report was submitted without proper measurement as required under the rules. It is further submitted that Gata No. 413 and 414 have jointly been measured without identifying them separately on spot.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for contesting respondent have contended that, in fact, no objection has been filed on behalf of petitioner against the report dated 28.02.2006 submitted by Revenue Inspector for demarcation. It is further contended that there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that the petitioner has ever filed any objection against the report dated 28.02.2006, which has been accepted by the Revenue Courts. It is next contended that the report dated 28.02.2006 was submitted after measurement of spot in pursuant to the direction dated 09.11.2005 passed by respondent no. 3, therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by respondent no. 2, 3 and 4. Accordingly the present petitioner deserves to be dismissed in limine. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it reveals that the order dated 9.11.2005 passed by the respondent No.

3 remitting the matter before the respondent No. 4 to decide it afresh after calling for a new report, has became final between the parties. In pursuance of the order dated 9.11.2005, trial court had issued a direction calling for report. The Revenue Inspector has submitted report dated 28.2.2006 and he has proved the aforesaid report in the court. The respondent No. 4 was satisfied with the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector and accordingly decided the matter vide order dated 30.6.2006. Perusal of the order dated 30.6.2006 reveals that the respondent No. 4 has discussed the objection filed by all the concerned parties namely Smt. Kirdari, Chaman Singh and Omkar Singh etc. Discussing the contents of the objection, learned trial court has concluded that there is no force in the objection filed by the parties concerned. So far as the objection filed on behalf of the present petitioner is concerned, it is categorically stated in order dated 30.6.2006 that the defendant No.

17, Arvind Singh (brother of the petitioner) has moved an application dated 29.6.2006 seeking time for filing the objection. Aforesaid application moved by the defendant No. 17, Arvind Singh (brother of the petitioner) has been rejected on the same day on the ground that he had full knowledge about the proceeding pending inasmuch as, vide order dated 30.11.2005, parties were directed to appear before the court. However he has not filed any objection against the new report dated

28.02.2006 submitted by revenue inspector. It appears that the rejection order dated 29.6.2006 passed on the same date of filing of application has became final between the parties inasmuch as there is nothing on record to prove that the said order was ever challenged before any competent court. On appeal being filed, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has discussed the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that report was rightly submitted and the same was proved by the Revenue Inspector. The order passed by the respondent No. 3 was affirmed by the respondent No. 2. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate as to how the petitioner is prejudiced, or there is likelihood of causing any miscarriage of justice to the petitioners, due to the impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and

There is nothing on the record to demonstrate that the petitioner has filed any objection against the report dated

28.2.2006. The observation made by the respondent No. 4 in his order dated 30.6.2006 with respect to the rejection of his application dated 29.6.2006 has not been challenged in the appeal filed on behalf of Arvind Singh and others being appeal No. 11/2005-2006. I do not find any merit in the instant petition to interfere in the impugned orders passed by respondents no. 2, 3 and

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to substantiate his submissions advanced by him assailing the orders impugned. There is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 warranting the indulgence of this Court in exercise of it's extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, instant writ petition, being devoid of merits and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to the costs. Order Date :- 10.8.2022 v.k.updh. UPADHYAY Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad