SURENDRA KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ajai Kumar Rai holding brief of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, leaned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chandra Prakash Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 6Gram Sabha.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plot No. 850M area 0.0090 hectare situated in village Bheelampur chhapra, Pergana Atraulia, Tehasil Budhanpur, District Azamgarh was recorded as Navin Patri in the revenue record. A report dtd. 20/3/2018 was submitted that petitioner is in possession of 0.009 hectare area of plot No. 850M since before 29/11/2012 by raising residential mandai over the same as such the plot No. 850M area 0.0090 hectare is to be recorded as abadi class 6(2) after expunging the entry of Navin Patri, the same was registered as Case No. 58 under sec. 67A(1) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 Report Versus Surendra Kumar Rai before respondent No. 5 Sub Divisional officer, Budhanpur, Azamgarh and the same was finally decided by respondent No. 5 vide order dtd. 6/4/2018 approving the report dtd. 20/3/2018 and plot No. 850M area 0.0090 hectare was ordered to be recorded as Abadi Class 6(2) expunging the entry of Navin Patri. Against the order dtd. 6/4/2018 passed by respondent No. 5 one Surya kumar filed a restoration application dtd. 22/5/2018. Petitioner's brother (respondent Nos. 7 to 10) also filed a restoration application dtd. 5/6/2018 19/6/2018. Petitioner filed his objection dtd. 14/6/2022 to the restoration applications Respondent No. 7 filed a Writ C No. 9923 of 2022 before this Court for expeditious disposal of his restoration application dtd. 5/6/2018 against the order dtd. 6/4/2018, the aforementioned Writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 26/5/2022 for deciding the restoration application expeditiously preferably within period of 2 months. State of U.P. also filed a restoration application dtd. 21/6/2022 along with the prayer for condonation of delay against the order dtd. 6/4/2018. Respondent No. 5 vide order dtd. 10/1/2023 allowed the restoration application filed against the order dtd. 6/4/2018 and restored the case on its original number for fresh decision. Against the order 6/4/2018 petitioner also filed a Revision No. 195A of 2023 before respondent No. 3 Commissioner although on the withdrawal application dtd. 14/2/2023 filed on behalf of petitioner the revision filed by petitioner was dismissed as not pressed vide order dtd. 15/3/2023. Petitioner challenged the order dtd. 10/1/2023 before respondent No. 2 Board of Revenue by way of Revision No. 528 of 2023 under Sec. 210 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and the same was dismissed vide order dtd. 16/3/2023. Review application filed against the order dtd. 16/3/2023 was also dismissed vide order dtd. 13/10/2023 hence this writ petition for the following prayer

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was granted benefit under Sec. 67A (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on the basis of the report submitted by the authorities. He submitted that against the order passed in the proceeding under Sec. 67A(1)of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 several restoration applications were filed. He submitted that one of the restoration application was filed at the instance of the State. He further submitted that restoration application filed by State has been allowed and matter has been restored for fresh consideration, which is abuse of process of law as earlier the proceeding was concluded on the basis of the report of the authorities which requires no interference. He submitted that against the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, restoring the proceeding under Sec. 67A (1) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 petitioner first filed revision before the Commissioner, which was dismissed as not pressed. He further submitted that petitioner challenged the order of Sub Divisional Officer before the Board of Revenue which has been dismissed on the ground that second revison at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable, without the considering the fact that earlier revision as already been dismissed as not pressed. therefore, the impugned order be set aside and order passed under Sec. 67A(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 be affirmed.