DAYANAND SIKSHA SANSTHAN Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 24/7/2017 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Class (Sadar), Dehradun, in summary proceedings, under Sec. 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. He is also challenging the judgment dtd. 21/9/2017 passed by Commissioner, Garhwal Division, whereby his revision, challenging the order passed by Assistant Collector, was dismissed.

(2.) It transpires that respondent nos. 1 to 6 moved an application, under Sec. 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, contending that their forefathers were joint tenure holders in respect of land in question, however, after the Fasli Year 1373, names of their forefathers have been omitted from the Annual Register, therefore, the Annual Register be corrected. The said application made by the private respondents was allowed by Assistant Collector, Ist Class on a report submitted by the concerned Lekhpal (Revenue Inspector). Petitioner, who was not party to the proceedings under Sec. 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, filed a revision under Sec. 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, contending that the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh had acquired land comprised in Village Rangadwala and Village Mitthibedi, Pargana Pachwadoon and, out of the land so acquired, 10 acre land was allotted to the petitioner for running D.A.V. Inter College and he was a necessary party to the proceedings under Sec. 33/39 of the Act. Before the Revisional Court, private respondents contended that the revision filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as he was not a party to the proceedings before Assistant Collector and he did not move any application seeking his impleadment. It was further contended that although petitioner contends that he was allotted a piece of land by the State Government; but, no document has been produced by him in support of his claim.

(3.) Learned Revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner vide judgment dtd. 21/9/2017, by holding that petitioner was not party to the proceedings pending before the Assistant Collector and he did not file any application seeking his impleadment in the said proceedings. It was further held that petitioner could have filed application for seeking recall of the order dtd. 24/7/2017, if it was an ex-parte order. The Revisional Court further held that petitioner has not been able to place any material on record, in support of his claim, regarding title over the subject land, however, while dismissing petitioner 's revision, Revisional Court granted him liberty to approach learned Assistant Collector seeking recall of the order and also for seeking his impleadment in the proceedings.