Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
(2.) A transfer of agricultural land took place and the Petitioners are the vendees of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The said transaction was found to be in violation of the provisions of Section 168 -A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act 1950. The Petitioner contested the said infirmity up to the Board of Revenue and his revision came to be dismissed vide order dated 8.3.1995; a copy of the order has been placed on record as Annexure -2. Later on certain provisions were introduced by the State Government extending the benefit of regularisation of such transaction on certain deposits being made by a particular date. The Petitioner in terms of such a benefit extended, applied for the regularisation of the transaction on which orders came to be passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate on 18.6.2010. Learned Counsel contends that the deposit of Rs. 1,000/ - has also been made.
(3.) THE Petitioner appears to have been advised to file a review application before the Board of Revenue for setting aside the earlier order dated 8.3.1995. The said review application has been rejected on 17.6.2011 and it is the said order as well as the order dated 8.3.1995 which are under challenge. Leaned counsel submits that the review ought to have been accepted and the order dated 8.3.1995 ought to have been set aside so as to enable the Petitioner to receive the benefit of the subsequent Government Orders permitting regularisation of such transactions.;