RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Although the matter is taken in the revised call, none has appeared for the private respondents despite due service.

(2.) This petition calls in question an order dated 03 January 2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer allowing an appeal preferred by the private respondents. A further challenge is made to the orders dated 22 June 2004 and 03 April 2008. By the first of those orders, the revision preferred by the petitioner herein was dismissed as not pressed. The application for recall which was made thereafter has also been dismissed by the order of 03 April 2008.

(3.) On 08 May 2003, the petitioner is stated to have purchased the property in question by way of a registered sale deed. After the execution of that instrument, the petitioners applied for mutation of their names in the record of rights. At this stage, the respondents who were practicing advocates filed objections to the application for mutation as made. It may only be noted that the applications were not made by the private respondents on the strength of any right, title or interest being claimed in the property. The objections were more in the nature of a complaint in respect of the sale deed which had been executed in favour of the petitioners. The Naib Tehsildar however, rejected the objections and allowed the application of the petitioners on 22 September 2003. Pursuant to that order, the names of the petitioners were recorded in the record of rights on 24 September 2003. The respondents thereafter are stated to have preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate purporting to invoke the rights conferred by Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. That appeal came to be allowed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate holding that the sale effected in favour of the petitioners was hit by Section 168 A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners preferred a revision. In that revision, an application signed by their advocate is stated to have been made for it being dismissed as not pressed. That application was allowed by the Revisional Authority on 22 June 2004 and the revision dismissed as not pressed.