Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
(2.) IN proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the Petitioner filed an impleadment application. The impleadment application was rejected, against which a revision was filed which was dismissed and then the Petitioner came up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 23824 of 2011 where the following order was passed: Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the impugned order. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 5.4.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2, Sub Divisional Officer/S.D.M. Gyanpur, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar by which he rejected the application filed by the Petitioner for impleadment in proceeding under Section 41 of the U.P. Z.A. & U.P. LAND REVENUE ACT instituted at the behest of the Respondent No. 5 as well as the order dated 12.1.2011 passed by Respondent No. 1, Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur by which he dismissed the revision preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 5.4.2010 of the Respondent No. 2. Sri S.C. Pandey who has filed caveat on behalf of Respondent No. 5 stated at the bar that the proceedings under Section 41 of U.P. Z.A. & U.P. LAND REVENUE ACT have attained finality by order dated 24.1.2011 and nothing is pending before Respondent No. 2. In view of the above, I am of the view that this writ petition has been rendered in fructuous and is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to prefer any remedy which may be available to him against the order dated 24.1.2011. If the statement made by Sri S.C. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 is not correct in that case, it will be open to the Petitioner to move an application for recalling this order. Subject to the aforesaid, observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. This Court did not interfere in the order and treated the petition as infectious on the ground that since final orders have already been passed therefore it shall be open to the Petitioner to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
(3.) THE Petitioner instead of filing a revision against the final order dated 24.1.2011 filed a restoration application which has been rejected, against which the revision was dismissed. Hence, this petition.;