RAMESH PAL SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.11.1991 passed by the respondent No. 1, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and the judgment and order dated 21.1.1985 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bulandshahr, in the proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. (for short 'the Act').

(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, as unfolded by the material on the record, are that it was on 18.12.1979 that respondent No. 3. Vireshwar Kumar Pandey filed an application under Section 41 of the Act before respondent No. 2 complaining that the petitioners have demolished northern boundary of his plot No. 1997. (hereinafter referred to as 'the plot in dispute'), measuring two bighas two biswas and included substantial area of the said plot in their plot Nos. 1995 and 1994 in village Pahasu. district. Bulandshahr. It was. therefore, prayed that the boundaries of the aforesaid three plots be fixed and respondent No. 3 be given possession over the plot in dispute. On receipt of the said application, the respondent No. 2 called the report from the Kanungo. The Kanungo on the strength of the order passed by the respondent No. 2. after making measurements in accordance with the law, submitted his report to the effect that an area measuring two biswas five biswansis of the plot in dispute was included, after demolishing its northern boundary, in plot Nos. 1995 and 1994 by the petitioners. Against the aforesaid report, the petitioners filed their objections. The respondent No. 2 after hearing the parties rejected the objections filed by the petitioners and accepted the report of the Kanungo by his order dated 21.1.1985. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 2, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner. Meerut Division, Meerut. The Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 21.1.1985 passed by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3. thereafter, filed a revision before the respondent No. 1, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 28.11.1991. Hence, the present petition.