BHANU PRATAP Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State -respondents.

(2.) IN substance, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by non -disposal of his stay application filed in revision no. 21 of 2013 (Chhote Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others). In the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, in a case initiated by the State -respondents under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, petitioner's name has been expunged from the revenue records vide order dated 2.2.2013 in case no. 72 (State Vs. Chhote Lal). Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed revision. Along with the revision, the petitioner has also filed an application for maintaining revenue entries, but no order has yet been passed on the said application.

(3.) IT may be clarified that I have not addressed myself on the merit of the claim of the petitioner and the learned Commissioner is free to pass an independent order in accordance with law without being influenced by the order passed by this Court.