LATOOR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri S.P. Giri for the petitioners and Sri Amit Singh for the respondents.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner dated 24.2.2009 and Board of Revenue dated 2.1.2014 passed in the proceeding arising out of the suit under section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioners submits that Lekhpal has no jurisdiction to carve out a plot to give effect partition in the revenue record. He further submits that according to the defendant the sale -deed of the petitioners was in respect of plot No. 161/1 as such the petitioners should be given possession over it as marked by the Lekhpal in the record but in the sale -deed of the petitioners it has been clearly mentioned that he has been sold the land lying in eastern -northern portion along with his plot No. 162. Thus, the Additional Commissioner has illegally failed to examine these facts and the observation was made by him that only on the basis of sub -plots allotted in khatauni, the matter is required to be decided in accordance with law. He submits that the observation made by the Additional Commissioner will create difficulty for the petitioners as the Sub Divisional Officer will be bound by the observation and finding of the Additional Commissioner and will not consider anything else in the matter. In such circumstances, the revision was filed but it was illegally dismissed by the Board of Revenue.