RAJ KISHORE Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.5-Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1 to 4. Challenge in the present writ petition is order dtd. 22/3/2021 passed by the Board of Revenue (in brevity 'B.O.R.') (respondent no.2) by which matter has been remitted before the authority concerned.

(2.) From the record it reveals that instant writ petition is arising out of order passed under Sec. 166/167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in brevity 'U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act'). In pursuance of registered sale deed dtd. 21/4/1999 executed by Chhanguwa (respondent no.6), Maheshwar Datta had moved mutation application to record his name in place of Chhanguwa. Lekhpal has submitted report raising question about the validity of sale deed owing to execution by a persons belonging to Scheduled Caste in favour of Brahmin. Consequently, land in question was ordered to be vested in State, vide order dtd. 24/9/2001 passed by Sub Divisional Magistate, Karvi (in brevity 'S.D.M.') (respondent no.3). Subsequently, on the restoration moved by respondent no.6, order dtd. 24/9/2001 was recalled and matter was restored vide order dtd. 22/12/2001. After restoration, fresh order dtd. 10/5/2002 was passed by respondent no.3 in favour of respondent no.6. At a very belated stage, present petitioner has moved a miscellaneous application dtd. 19/3/2015 (Annexure-7) before the respondent no.3 for issuing direction to the District Government Counsel (Revenue) (in brevity 'D.G.C.R.') to reopen the earlier matter, which was decided in favour of respondent no.6. Subsequently, petitioner has moved another application dtd. 6/5/2015. On the aforesaid applications, respondent no.3 has registered as miscellaneous case no.10 and passed an interim order dtd. 11/6/2015 (Annexure-8) directing the parties to maintain status quo on the spot. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no.6 has filed a revision before the respondent no.2 against order dtd. 11/6/2015. Aforesaid revision was allowed vide impugned order dtd. 22/3/2021 passed by respondent no.2, quashing the order dtd. 11/6/2015 with a direction that Court concerned should decide the maintainability of the application, first, moved by petitioner, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order dtd. 22/3/2021 passed by the respondent no.2 by which matter has been remitted before the authority concerned to decide the maintainability of the miscellaneous application in accordance with law.