ASHISH SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE on behalf of respondents -1 and 2 has been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel and on behalf of respondents has been accepted by Sri Diwakar Singh. Sri Awadhesh Kumar Sharma has filed caveat on behalf of respondent -4 and he has also instructions on behalf of respondents -3 and 5. The Counsel for the respondents -3 to 5 does not propose to file counter -affidavit.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 9.10.2014 passed in the proceeding under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Officer has relied upon the oral statement of the petitioner, which was fully corroborated by the documentary evidence, accordingly, the finding recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as Tehsildar were not liable to be set aside. So far as the opportunity for cross -examination of one of the witnesses is concerned, the finding is not totally based upon the statement of Indra Bahadur alone. Further, Indra Bahadur was examined by the respondents and in case he was not cross -examined by the petitioner no prejudice has been caused to the respondents and on this ground the revision could not have been allowed.