YOGENDRA NATH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JANARDAN Sahai, J. The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. An application for mutation was filed by the respondent No. 2 Life Insurance Corporation of India. The case of the Life Insurance Corporation is that Shri Nath Gupta was the original tenure- holder. He transferred the land in dispute in favour of Bharat Stores and Bharat Stores in turn transferred it to Swadeshi Beema Company Ltd. , which merged in the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956. It is alleged that the name of the life Insurance Corporation of India was mutated over the disputed land in the year 1965. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the order of mutation, which was allowed in the year 1985 and the order of mutation was set aside and the mutation case was restored. The mutation application was thereafter dismissed in default on 16- 2-2001 against which order the Life Insurance Corporation of India filed a restoration application, which was dismissed against which an appeal as filed which was dismissed on 30-12- 2002 and against these orders the Life Insurance Corporation preferred a revision, which is pending before the Board of Revenue. Before the Board of Revenue an application was filed by the petitioner that an order dated 12-7-2002 under Section 143 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act has been passed whereby the land in dispute has been declared as abadi and has ceased to be land and that the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction and the revision before Board of Revenue has to be dismissed. On this application of the petitioner the Board of Revenue passed the impugned order dated 18-5-2005 by which it has held that the order dated 12-7- 2002 is in breach of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and it has fixed a date for hearing the revision of the Life Insurance Corporation.

(2.) I have heard Sri Pramod Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 Life Insurance Corporation of India.