SHIV NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rajnath, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel representing the Land Management Committee concerned.

(2.) This petition challenges an order dated 27.06.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner in a revision petition preferred by the petitioner under section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby a challenge was made to an order dated 26.12.1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer concerned. By the said order dated 26.12.1994 the Sub Divisional Officer had settled the land in question in favour of the respondent no.6 by giving him the benefit of section 122-B (4F) of the Act.

(3.) The petitioner also challenges the order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the orders dated 27.06.2006 and 26.12.1994 passed by the Additional Commissioner and Sub Divisional Officer respectively was dismissed on the ground that since the petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision under section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the Additional Commissioner, as such the second revision under the said provisions before the Board of Revenue was not maintainable.