KRISHNA MURARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K.Srivastava for the respondents.
(2.) UNDISPUTED facts are that in re­spect of the land in dispute, the petitioner obtained declaration under section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Re­forms Act (in short the 'Act') and thereafter, also sought permission to construct a wall. Proceeding under section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated by the respondents on the allegations that the pe­titioner after encroaching chak road has obtained declaration. A report was called for and the Collector vide order dated 22.7.2009 confirmed the report submitted by the Tehsildar that there was shortfall in the area of the chak road and increase in the area of the petitioner. The petitioner went up in revision which was allowed and the mat­ter was remanded back to the Trial Court to decide the same afresh. The Collector again vide order dated 1.4.2010 accepted the report submitted by the Tehsildar and directed cor­rection of record accordingly. The petitioner 'went up in revision. Revisional Court has also confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the same. Twice the petitioner had an opportunity to object to the Tehsildar's report but no objection was raised and the Collector finding that there is no infirmity in the Tehsildar's report, ac­cepted the same and directed correction of the record accordingly. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the declaration was made in respect of the land under section 143 of the Act as such the Revenue Court will have no jurisdiction over the matter.
(3.) THE argument is totally miscon­ceived. Declaration under section 143 of the Act can only be made in respect of a hold­ing and if the same has been surreptitiously obtained in respect of the chak road the same will have no effect. In such view of the matter, declaration, if any, obtained by the petitioner by demolishing or amalganating the chak road in his plot, the said declaration would be of no effect and the revenue Court will have full jurisdiction to correct the same in accordance with the provision of U.P. Land Revenue Act. In view of aforesaid discussions, there is no scope for interference in the im­pugned order. The petition stands dis­missed in limine. Petition Dismissed.;