Allahabad High Court
Ramjeet And Others vs Board Of Revenue U.P. Alld And Others on 29 January, 2010
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3877 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ramjeet And Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Alld And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Jai Prakash Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Shri J.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, 6,7, 8 & 9 and Shri Anuj Kumar, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.4 and 5.
Petitioners raised a grievance against the allotment of the land in dispute No. 215 area 0-23-3 situate in Mauza Jauharpur Pargana Bhadohi, Tehsil Gyanpur and the samewas considered and rejected vide order dated 30.09.1989 passed by Chief Revenue Officer Varanai. It was provided that except for the area on which exists the temple the rest of the land in dispute be handed over to the allottee Smt. Gunraji w/o Gulab. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order petitioners preferred a revision before the Commissioner but the same was rejected as not maintainable vide order dated 19.05.1993. Thereafter a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue and the same was also dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioners thereafter applied for review of the order of the Board of Revenue and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2009.
In the above circumstances the petitioners have come up in this writ petition assailing the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 29.10.2009, 30.09.2000, Additional Commissioner Varanasi dated 19.05.1993 as also the order of the Chief Revenue Officer dated 30.09.1989.
Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that against the order dated 30.09.1989 no revision is provided under the Act and therefore the Additional Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue committed no error in dismissing the revision as well as the review application of the petitioners.
Petitioners have complaint against the allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the Smt. Gunraji. The said grievance of petitioners was considered and decided in terms of the provisions of Section 122-(C)(6) of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. Subsection 7 of Section 122-C provides that every order passed by the Assistant Collector under Subsection 4 subject to provisions of Subsection 6 and every order passed by Collector under Subsection 6 shall be final and the provisions of Section 333 and 333A shall not apply in relation thereto. In other words meaning thereby that there is no provision for any revision against the order passed under Section 122-(C)(6) of the Act.
In view of the above, the Additional Collector as well as the Board of Revenue rightly dismissed the revisions of the petitioners as not maintainable. The review application as such has also been rightly rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage made an effort to challenge the order dated 30.09.1989 on merits contending that petitioners are in possession over the land in dispute and a such the allotment made in favour of the Smt. Gunraji is liable to be cancelled. The Chief Revenue Officer after careful examination of the entire evidence on record found that the statement of the father of the petitioner was conflicting in nature which only proves that a very small temple was constructed by him about 12 to 13 years ago by putting a small image of a deity. The allotment made in favour of the Smt. Gunraji was otherwisefound to be valid which was not liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, directions were issued to leave out the area of the temple of the land alloted to her on 30.09.1986.
In view of the findings so recorded by the Chief Revenue Officer which are not shown to be perverse in any manner, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction that to when order impugned had been passed way back in the year 1989.
Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2010 ARS