PYARE LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.S. Chaudhary for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Yadav, Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey and Sri Manoj Yadav for the contesting respondents. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Collector, dated 24.9.2007 and Additional Commissioner (Administration), dated 27.12.2010, arising out of proceedings under section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application on 15.2.2007 before Additional Collector for giving effect to the order dated 27.12.1991, passed under section 28 of the Act, in the revenue record. The application was heard by Additional Collector, who by order dated 24.9.2007, held that after delay of about 16 years, the order dated 27.12.1991, passed in the proceeding under section 28 of the Act cannot be complied with. On this finding, the application of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 24.9.2007. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by order dated 27.12.2010, held that in the garb of the order relating to correction of map, the petitioner actually wants correction in the revenue record, for which a separate proceeding is provided under the Act. The alleged order for correction, of map was passed on 27.12.1991, which cannot be implemented after expiry of about 16 years. On this finding, the revision was also dismissed. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) IN reply to the aforesaid arguments, the Counsel for the respondent submits that area of plot 871 is recorded as 4 -18 -13 bigha, in the name of Lokmani (father of the petitioner), while area of plot 872 is recorded as 1 -15 -13 bigha, in the name of Khunna (father of respondent -5) in final consolidation record and this entry is continuing in the revenue records. In the map, plot 872 is shown by the side of road. In the garb of correction in the map, the petitioner want to come on the road side. The application of the petitioner is mala fide. Such relief cannot be granted to the petitioner in summary proceedings of the Act. The application of the petitioner has been rightly dismissed.