- (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Collector dated 6.6.2011 Annexure-6 to the writ petition whereby it has been held that the revision filed under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in relation to the dispute raised by the petitioner was not maintainable and accordingly the revision has been rejected.
(2.) The petitioners are the sons of Ram Raksha Pal Singh. The Tahsildar had proceeded against the father of the petitioners alleging unauthorised occupation of Gaon Sabha land in proceedings under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. An order came to be passed on 14.3.2011 in the said proceedings. The petitioners were admittedly not parties to the said proceedings nor any notice had been issued to the petitioners by the Tahsildar. While proceeding to decide the matter the Tahsildar had made certain observations about the support being extended by the petitioners to their father in relation to the unauthorised occupation which was subject-matter of the said dispute.
(3.) Aggrieved by the said comments contained in the order under Section 122B of the 1950 Act, the petitioners came up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 26096 of 2011 which was disposed of on 10.5.2011 by the following order : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for deleting the observations and comments made against the petitioners in the order dated 14th March, 2011 passed by the Assistant Collector in a case under Section 122B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Against the aforesaid order any aggrieved person has right to file a revision before the Collector on the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The petitioner having adequate statutory remedy against the order impugned, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner may seek his remedy by filing revision which may be considered in accordance with law. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. This Court therefore directed the Collector to proceed to entertain the revision on behalf of the petitioners for expunging the said comments made on the petitioners. While disposing of the writ petition, the Court simply recited the language of sub-section (4A) of Section 122B of the 1950 Act.;