BRAHMPAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. K.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State respondent, Sri. Vijai Bhan Singh holding brief of Sri. Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 9.4.2013 and 5.3.2013 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in Revision No. 46 of 2006-07. vide order dated 5.3.2013 the learned Member, Board of Revenue has dismissed the petitioner's revision as not maintainable whereas vide order dated 9.4.2013 the petitioner's review application has been rejected.

(2.) Sri. K.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Member, Board of Revenue has erred in dismissing the revision as not maintainable. In his submission, learned Member, Board of Revenue even did not appreciate the direction of this Court given in Writ -B. No. 68501 of 2012 [Smt. Rajesh v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 28.1.2013 through which this Court had directed the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad to decide Revision on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

(3.) The facts giving rise in this writ petition are that it appears that the respondent No. 3 has filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the Act). The aforesaid suit was numbered as Suit No. 47 of 2006 (Smt. Rajesh v. Yadram). In the aforesaid suit respondent No. 3 has filed an application under Section 229D seeking interim protection. On the said application an order was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Meerut directing the parties to maintain status quo. The petitioner, herein, has filed an application for vacation of the aforesaid order dated 25.4.2006. The Sub Divisional Officer after hearing both parties has directed the parties vide order dated 28.3.2006 to maintain the order dated 25.4.2006 till the disposal of the suit. Challenging the order dated 28.3.2006 the petitioner has filed Revision No. 46 of 2007 (Brijpal v. Sub Divisional Officer, Meerut. In the said revision an application was filed seeking interim protection. On the said application an order was passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue for maintaining status quo. The respondent has filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order and that application was rejected on 2.11.2007. Challenging this order respondent No. 3 has filed Writ-B No. 68501 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of on 28.1.2013 by the following order: