High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30862 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 16688 of 2001 Petitioner :- Heera Lal Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P.Singh,H.N.Shukla,Manoj Kumar Mishra,R.R.Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Om Prakash Mishra,Shiv Shanker Yadav,Yogendra Nath Shukla Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Legal Reasoning
8. There is no dispute about the facts that proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was initiated by the petitioners along with others and the entry of the plot in question has been expunged by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, but Board of Revenue on the basis of reference sent by Additional Commissioner has set aside the order of Sub-Divisional Officer and directed the petitioner to avail the remedy for declaration of their rights in respect to the plot in question before the competent Court. 9. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as well as the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue demonstrates that the summary proceeding has been initiated by the petitioners to challange the long standing entry of plot in question, which is not permissible in the eye of law. The Board of Revenue has rightly exercised the jurisdiction with observation that the petitioners should file a Suit for declaration of their rights under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 10. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case no interference is required against the impugned order dated 30.01.2001 passed by the respondent no.1/Board of Revenue and order dated 10.09.1997 passed by respondent no. 2/Additional Commissioner.
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Brief facts of the case are that proceedings was initiated under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 by the petitioner along with others in respect entry of plot no. 127 situated at Village-Fattupur-Amrauna, Tehsil-Chauthar, District-Sant Ravidas Nagar. The aforementioned proceeding was decided by Sub- Divisional Officer vide order dated 24.08.1995 expunging the revenue entry of the plot no. 127. Against the order dated 24.08.1995 contesting respondents filed a revision before the Commissioner, which was registered as revision no. 116 of 1995 under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The aforementioned revision was decided by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Varanasi Division, Varanasi vide order dated 10.09.1997 sending the reference before the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order dated 24.09.1995 and dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act as not maintainable. The Board of Revenue registered the aforementioned reference as Reference Case No. 36/42 of 1997-98 and vide order dated 30.01.2001 accepted the reference setting aside the order dated 24.08.1995. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for following reliefs:- "(A) issue a writ order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the Judgment and order dated 30.1.2001, 10.9.97 to the present writ petition. (B) issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding over the contesting respondent no. 6 to 10 and 16, from interfering in the possession of the petitioners and the respondents may further be commanded from changing the nature of land in any manner by making construction, sale etc. (C) issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (D) award the cost of the petitioner." 3. This Court vide order dated 03.05.2001 entertained the matter and directed the parties to maintain status quo. 4. In pursuance of the aforementioned order dated 03.05.2001,the affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was rightly filed to correct the entry of plot no. 127. He further submitted that Sub-Divisional Officer has rightly exercised jurisdiction to correct the entry of plot in question, but in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction the Board of Revenue has illegally set aside the order of Sub-Divisional Officer and rejected the application filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. He submitted that in view of the earlier entry of the plot in question there is no illegality in the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer correcting the revenue entry of the plot in question. 6. On the other hand, Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 cannot be entertained to correct the long standing entry of the plot in question. He further submitted that Additional Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue has rightly observed in the order that proper remedy for petitioner is to file a Suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act rather to initiate the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He submitted that petitioners have already filed a Suit, which is pending before the Civil Court. He further submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Board of Revenue, as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the Case of Ram Krishna Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (1) ADJ 30 (LB). 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Decision
11. The writ petition is dismissed with observation that petitioners can file a Suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for declaration of their rights in respect to plot in question and the order impugned shall be subject to the adjudication of the dispute by the competent Court. 12. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Neetu Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad