VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Satish Mohan Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at length. Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3, but he is not present when the case is called on. So far as respondent Nos. 4 to 14 are concerned, service upon them has been held sufficient vide order dated 13.08.2019. No one appears on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 14. Today, this matter has come up for final hearing as directed vide order dated 13.08.2019.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 13.09.2018 and 30.06.2019, passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in Revision No.1322 of 2018 (Computerized Case No.AL20180531001322) Keshav Prasad Vs. Dhruv Chand and to quash proceedings in the said Revision. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the father of the petitioners filed Case No.T-20130531035785 (Barsu Ram Vs. Roop Chandra & Ors.) under Section 41 Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short 'the Act') for demarcation of boundaries of Arazi Nos. 36Kha and 74/41. This application was made on 15.07.2006 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gorakhpur. The original applicant Barsu Ram died, and in his place, the petitioners were substituted as his heirs and legal representatives, who pursued the said application. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gorakhpur, after considering all reports submitted by the inspection and technical authorities, as also the objections by parties adversely affected or likely to be so affected, passed an order dated 19.02.2016, approving the report dated 22.02.2007, submitted by the Revenue Inspector, together with changes proposed to the field book. The application was allowed in terms of the aforesaid order dated 19.02.2016, granting demarcation to be made in accordance with the report dated 22.02.2007 (supra). It is averred that the order under Section 41 though made, the process of demarcation did not move and the order was not carried into execution. As such, the petitioners were compelled to file Writ C-No.25500 of 2017, before this Court seeking to carry out the order dated 19.02.2016 into execution. Necessary directions to the Sub-Divisional Officer, were issued by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2017, requiring him to enforce his order dated 19.02.2016, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of that order.

(3.) It is the petitioners' case that before the demarcation could be carried out, Keshav Prasad and three others, who were strangers to the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, filed Appeal No.C-2016050000674 under Section 210 of the Act, to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur, challenging the order dated 19.02.2016, passed under Section 41 of the Act in Case No.T-20130531035785 in favour of the petitioners. Lateron, alleging inaction on the part of the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur where the appeal was pending, Keshav Prasad and others filed Writ C-No.37039 of 2017 before this Court seeking appropriate directions to decide the pending appeal and further for an interim relief that till disposal of the appeal by the Additional Commissioner, the order of demarcation may not be executed. This Court vide order dated 19.08.2017, passed in Writ C-No.37039 of 2017, disposed of the writ petition directing the Additional Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the said application of the petitioners, after hearing the parties within 15 days, and, further to decide the appeal expeditiously, within three months thereafter. It was ordered that for a period of one month, both parties would be obliged to maintain status quo on the spot. The Additional Commissioner (Administration), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur vide his order dated 24.11.2018, proceeded to dismiss the Appeal preferred by Keshav Prasad and others, and affirmed the order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Case No.T-20130531035785, made in favour of the petitioners, under Section 41 of the Act.