RAMA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri O.P.Pandey along with Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Through this writ petition quashing of the orders dated 17.7.2012, 18.7.2012 and 16.11.2012 passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 have been sought for.? On 4.4.2013 this Court has passed the following order:

(3.) The crux of the dispute has already been noticed by this Court? as? mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order dated 4.4.2013. The Sub Divisional Officer was required to produce the record and explain his conduct. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State informs that prior to filing of the writ petition the petitioners have filed Revision No. 247/A of 2013 (Vijai Ram vs. State of U.P. and others) challenging the impugned order. Learned standing counsel not only showed the photostat copy of the revision filed by the petitioners but he has also shown the requisition letter issued by the office of the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh summoning the record of the court, which have been brought on record of the writ petition.? Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he may be granted time to ascertain as to whether the revision has been filed or not. I do not find any ground to disbelieve the papers produced by the learned standing counsel.