MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Harsh Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Surya Bhan Singh and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dtd. 23/9/2021 passed by the court of Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Moradabad in Case No. 04080 of 2018, Computerized Case No. T201813540104080 (Mahendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.) in proceedings under Sec. 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 [Revenue Code] and the order dtd. 23/11/2021 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad in Case No. Rev/2396/2021/Moradabad, Computerized Case No. AL20211354002396 (Mahendra Singh and others Vs. Smt.Sharda Devi and others) in proceedings under Sec. 210 of the Revenue Code. A further direction is sought to the private respondent nos. 3 to 8 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners on land bearing Gata No. 251Aa situate at Bhaypur Tehsil and District Moradabad.

(3.) The case as set up in the writ petition is that the land bearing Gata No. 521 Ka area 3.2380 acre situate at village Bhaypur Tehsil and District Moradabad was allotted to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners; however due to mistake of revenue authorities, their names were wrongly recorded as class III tenure holder and treating them to be asami, proceedings under Rule 176-A (2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 [UPZA and LR Rules] were initiated and an exparte order dtd. 7/3/2003 was passed directing their names to be expunged from the revenue records. The land in question was thereafter allotted to the respondent nos. 3 to 8. Upon an application filed by the petitioners, the aforestated order was recalled by an order dtd. 4/12/2003 and the proceedings were thereafter dropped with the passing of an order dtd. 23/3/2006 under Rule 176-A (2). The order dtd. 23/3/2006 was put to challenge by the subsequent allottees as also the State of U.P. by filing a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Moradabad and in terms of an order dtd. 31/3/2010, the revisions were allowed and the order dtd. 23/3/2006 was set aside. The earlier order dtd. 7/3/2003, whereby the names of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners had been expunged, was affirmed. The petitioners thereafter preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue being Revision No. 13 of 2010-2011, which is stated to be pending.