RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram alongwith S.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Mahendra Pratap and Sri P.R. Maurya alongwith Sri Anurag Yadav, and Sri Sunil Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being decided on its own merits without exchange of affidavits.

(2.) Through this writ petition the petitioners have prayed issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.3.2013 passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial), Sadar, Jaunpur, respondent No. 3 in Case No. 248 (Hari Cold Storage and General Mills Private Limited v. Radhey Shyam and others) and the order dated 10.5.2013 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Jaunpur, respondent No. 2. vide order dated 25.3.2013 the application of respondent No. 4 filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (for short the Act) has been allowed. However, by the subsequent order the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with the direction to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order impugned in the revision.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revisional Court has erred in relegating the petitioners to avail remedy of appeal against the order impugned dated 25.3.2013 passed by the Tehsildar, respondent No. 3 instead of deciding the revision himself. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 contended that the issue involved in the revision can only be decided by the appellate Court as the jurisdiction of the revisional Court is very limited and the appellate Court can investigate the fact also. Therefore, no infirmity can be attached with the impugned order and the revisional Court has rightly directed the petitioners to file an appeal against the order impugned.