POORAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shantanu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Shri H.K. Shukla, learned standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 the Gram Panchayats, concerned.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed questioning the order dtd. 14/5/2024, passed by the Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj in a Review registered as Case No. REV/3878/2023 (Ram Deen v. Pooran and others), whereby and whereunder the Review has been allowed and the order dtd. 30/6/2023 passed in Second Appeal No. 1207 of 2021 under Sec. 208 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as also the orders passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division Jhansi, dtd. 26/3/2021 in First Appeal under Sec. 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and order dtd. 9/10/2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pali District-Lalitpur in proceedings under Sec. 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act have been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the proceedings afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned within three months.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are proforma respondents and notices need not be issued to them and that the respondent No. 4 alone is the only contesting respondent. The writ petition raises legal issues and may be decided without calling for a counteraffidavit.