LAWS(ALL)-2007-11-104

PRATIBHA DEVI Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONE

Decided On November 15, 2007
PRATIBHA DEVI Appellant
V/S
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25.5.2007, passed by the Additional commissioner, Administration Varanasi Division, Varanasi dismissing the revision No. 84 of 2005 filed by, the petitioner under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 28.3.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector Revenue, Varanasi deciding the appeal filed by the contesting respondent against the order dated 22.7.2002, passed by the Naib Tahsildar allowing the restoration application of the petitioner, setting aside the mutation order dated 4.11.2000, passed by the Naib Tahsildar in proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act')

(3.) SRI Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner refuting the preliminary objection of the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, contended that the writ petition is fully maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 28.3.2000 in appeal filed by the contesting respondents, was an order passed without jurisdiction since no appeal lay under the U.P. Land Revenue Act against the order dated 22.7.2002, passed by the Naib Tahsildar allowing the restoration application. SRI Sankatha Rai referred to sections 201,210 and 211 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and contended that appeal against the order dated 22.7.2002, passed by the Naib Tahsildar was not maintainable hence, error has been committed by the Sub Divisional Officer in allowing the appeal. He furtherer contended that the Sub Divisional Officer did not consider the evidence of the parties properly and has arrived at erroneous conclusion that unregistered Will dated 8.3.2000 is proved. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on various judgments of this Court which would be referred to hereinafter, while considering the submissions in details.