SAIDAN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE, U. P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, counsel for the respondent - gaon sabha and the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that khata no.4. khasra no.6/12, area 1.265 hectare situated at mauja- Sabuwala, ParganaBadhapur, Tehsil- Nagina, District Bijnor, was initially recorded in the name of Amar Singh, son of Sukke who belongs to the scheduled caste community. Amar Singh had taken a loan from Khadi Gramodyog by mortgaging the aforesaid land but the borrower failed to repay the amount, accordingly, the mortgaged land was attached and put to auction. In the auction proceeding, petitioner was the highest bidder, accordingly, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of auction sale took place on 21/12/2000. On the basis of the sale deed, name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records through mutation proceeding. Some complaints were lodged by respondent nos. 4 to 10 before the Additional Collector stating that property in question originally belongs to scheduled caste, as such, same cannot be transferred to the petitioner, without obtaining permission from the Collector. The Additional Collector without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed an ex parte order dtd. 6/10/2008, expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue records and vesting the property in favour of the State. Petitioner filed a restoration application, delay condonation application and stay application against the order dtd. 6/10/2008 but the Additional Collector has dismissed the restoration application of the petitioner vide order dtd. 9/4/2009 on the ground that petitioner was not party in the proceeding, hence the order dtd. 6/11/2008, cannot be recalled / set aside on the application of the petitioner. Petitioner under the legal advice, challenged the orders dtd. 6/10/2008 and 9/4/2009 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bijnor by means of filing a Complaint Case No.167/2009 which was dismissed on 1/1/2011 on the ground that Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. After receiving the certified copies of the order and other relevant documents, petitioner approached counsel for taking necessary steps in the matter, accordingly, a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue on 22/12/2017 along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit. The Board of Revenue, without considering the case of the petitioner on merit, has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) This Court while entertaining the writ petition has passed the following interim order dtd. 23/4/2018:-