JITENDER DHAWAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri CB. Yadav learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has come up assailing the order passing by the learned Commissioner dated 15.12.2010 and the rejection of the restoration application vide order dated 8.6.2011 on the ground that the said revision was not maintainable under the provisions of section 333 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and therefore the findings recorded by the Commissioner are beyond his powers keeping in view the nature of the proceedings that were initiated at the instance of the petitioners.

(2.) It appears that the petitioners have a decree in their favour which is stated to be from a competent Court. It is also the case of the petitioners that accordingly the revenue records have been maintained including the records during the consolidation proceedings and as such the petitioners stand recorded as tenures holder over the land in dispute. He submits with the aid of such evidence the petitioners are entitled to execute the decree which is in their favour.

(3.) A miscellaneous application appears to have been moved by the petitioner No. 2 on 19.7.2007 which was entertained by the S.D.M., Garh Mukteshwar, Ghaziabad whereupon certain reports were called for. This application was moved on the ground that the petitioners being the tenure holders of plot No. 49 old plot No. 400 were entitled for a demarcation of the area on the basis of the said decree as the Forest Department through its authorities are unnecessarily interfering with the possession of the petitioners. The application was admittedly referred to as a miscellaneous application and was not any regular proceeding under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 read with U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950. This miscellaneous proceeding was virtually adjudicated upon by the S.D.M. and as a matter of fact under this miscellaneous exercise, a sort of a declaration was given in favour of the petitioners.