RAM SEWAK SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vijay Kumar Rai, for the petitioner. Standing Counsel, for State of U.P. and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Sub -Divisional Officer dated 11.6.2012 and Board of Revenue U.P. dated 19.9.2013, arising out of proceeding under section 161 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) LAND Management Committee of Gram Panchayat Susuwahi, pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi (respondent -3) passed a resolution dated 17.8.2011 for construction of building for "Sarva Shiksha School" on plot 1995 (area 0.111 hectare). This plot was low level land and used to fill up with water in rainy season as such Sub -Divisional Officer did not find it suitable to construction of school building and by order dated 30.03.2012 rejected the resolution.

(3.) BEFORE Sub -Divisional Officer, statement of Amarjeet Singh, Pradhan and Ram Sewak Singh, the petitioner were recorded on 8.5.2012, in which they gave their consent for exchange. Thereafter one Rajeshwar Rai filed an objection, stating therein that plot 1995 was reserved for general abadi as such it was suitable for construction of school building. Then the petitioner again filed an application dated 31.5.2012. Sub -Divisional Officer after hearing the parties by order dated 11.6.2012 rejected the application for exchange on the ground that land in dispute were land of the category of section 132 as such exchange was not permissible. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 101 of 2011 -12) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Board of Revenue U.P., who by order dated 19.6.2013 found that earlier resolution for exchange was rejected by Sub -Divisional Officer by order dated 30.03.2012, which was not challenged by Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat passed a fresh resolution dated 4.4.2012 for exchange, which appears to have been passed to give undue benefit to the petitioner. On these findings the revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed.