RAJ KARAN Vs. U P BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State as well as learned standing counsel for the Land Management Committee concerned Sri R. N. Gupta.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that one Ram Adhar had filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad Division, Faizabad which was allowed vide order dated 21.4.2003. The revision was filed against the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue but the same was held to be not maintainable vide impugned order dated 8.5.2003.

(3.) AS the word 'the same person' has been mentioned, therefore, if any application or revision would have been moved by the instant petitioner, certainly second revision was barred but since the first revision was filed before the Commissioner by the other party which has been allowed, the second revision not by the same party but by the petitioner cannot be said to be not maintainable.