RAJA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Jitendra Bahadur Singh for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner dated 25.11.2014 by which the revision filed by Smt. Champa Devi was allowed and the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 29.7.2009 conferring right upon the petitioners under Section 123(2) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 was set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the case on merit after hearing the parties.

(3.) THE petitioners have raised construction over plot no.871 of village Fatehpur Kotehna, pargana Gwarich, district Gonda. The Lekhpal submitted a report that since the construction of the petitioners over the land in dispute was situated for more than 40 years as such he had become owner of it. On the basis of the report of Lekhpal the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 29.7.2009 held that the petitioners had become owner of the land under Section 123(2) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. The order was earlier challenged by Raja Ram, who was the original tenure holder, in revision but his revision was dismissed by order dated 5.9.2009 on the ground that Raj Ram had already sold the land in dispute to Smt. Champa Devi through sale deed dated 26.2.2009, therefore, he had been left with no right over the land in dispute. Thereafter a fresh revision was filed by Smt. Champa Devi, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 25.11.2014 by the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner in the impugned order has held that it is not clear as to whether the petitioners were entitled to be conferred any right under Section 123 (2) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 and the report of the Lekhpal in respect of criteria laid down for conferment of right under the aforesaid provision is silent. Accordingly, the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 29.7.2009 suffered from illegality. In such circumstances, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer for deciding the case afresh after hearing the parties. Hence this writ petition has been filed.