SHASHANK SHEKHAR Vs. COMMISSIONER JUDICIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya, by which he has rejected the Revision filed by the petitioners namely Revision No.00814 of 2019 , under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, rejecting the same against the order dated 16.01.2019. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, District Barabanki, in Case No.D2010041200129 filed under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (Jagdish Prasad Vs. Keshav Ram and Others).

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of facts as mentioned in the orders impugned that the ownership of the petitioners' land is questioned after 43 years. The patta was settled in the name of father of the petitioner no.1 under U.P. Bhoodan Yagya Act, 1952. It was challenged by means of filing an application under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act alleging that the father of the petitioner no.1 Shri Keshav Ram son of Khushiram had been wrongly granted patta of Plot Nos.49, 51, 52 situated at Village Jahangirabad, Pargana Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki on 17.08.1967 as he was not a resident of the Village Jahangirabad and there was no evidence that the file was actually approved by the Bhoodan Yagya Samiti. The petitioners on getting notice had put in their appearance and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the said application under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on the ground of limitation. The preliminary objection made by the petitioners has been rejected and the application for Condonation of delay has been allowed by the Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue. The petitioners approached in Revision but the Revision has been rejected on the ground that it has been filed against an interlocutory order.