SAKTI NATH MANI Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.P. Singh and Mr. Akhilanand Mishra, learned Counsels for the petitioners, Mr. A.B.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for private respondent nos. 4 to 12, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondents and Mr. Sudhir Bharti for respondent no.3, Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Sec. 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated in the year 1999 at the instance of father of respondent nos. 4 to 7 as well as respondent nos. 11 and 12 for correction of map which was initially registered as case No. 31 of 1999 and finally registered as case No. 588 of 2003 in respect to plot Nos. 100, 154, 156 and 157 situated in Village Shankarpura Tappa-Haveli, Pargana-Salempur Majhauli, Tehsil-Bhatparani District-Deoria impleading the petitioners' grandfather in the aforementioned proceeding. In the aforementioned proceeding, a report has been submitted by Revenue Inspector on 18/8/1999 in which area of plot No. 157 shown to be in excess by 0.10 dismil and area of plot Nos. 152, 153, 154 and 155 shown to be in excess by 6.1/2 dismil. Another report was submitted on 9/1/2003 by the Revenue Inspector which was forwarded by the Tehsildar on 18/1/2003 which is contrary to the earlier report dtd. 18/8/1999. Petitioners' father filed his objection dtd. 18/6/2003 to the report dtd. 9/1/2003 on the ground that plot No. 100 is abadi and the residential houses of the Villagers are situated over abadi plot No. 100, therefore, proceeding under Sec. 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is beyond the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. Shri Harish Chandra Chaubey, Revenue Inspector Bhatparani, Deoria appeared in the proceeding and recorded his statement in respect to the report submitted by him on 9/1/2003. Shri Harish Chandra Chaubey, Revenue Inspector stated in his statement that plot No. 156 is wrongly mentioned as plot No. 165 in the report as well as each and every plot has been measured by him separately but in the cross-examination, he admitted that he measure only plot Nos. 154, 155 and 157 but plot No. 100 has not been measured by him. Respondent no.2, Additional Collector, Administration, Deoria has allowed the application under Sec. 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act filed at the instance of the contesting respondents vide order dtd. 3/11/2004. Against the order dtd. 3/11/2004, petitioners' father filed revision under Sec. 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which was registered as Revision No. 66/66 of 2004-2005, Computerized case No. C20040500001105 under Sec. 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, Additional Commissioner vide order dtd. 16/12/2004 stayed the operation of the impugned order dtd. 3/11/2004 and interim order was remained in operation till the disposal of the revision. Revisional Court vide order dtd. 23/12/2022 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition for quashing the order dtd. 23/12/2022 and 3/11/2004 passed by Additional Commissioner Administration Gorakhpur and Additional Collector Administration Deoria respectively. It is also material that writ petition No. 10682 of 1981 filed by Sukhdev (father of respondent no.7) in respect to allotment of chak proceeding is pending before this Court and interim order is operating for maintaining status quo by both the parties to the proceeding.

(3.) Respondent nos. 4 to 12 have filed their counter-affidavit and petitioners have filed their rejoinder-affidavit in the matter.