- (1.) HEARD Sri Manish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah for respondents no.5 to 8 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1, 2 and 3. Notice has been accepted by Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav for the respondent no.4 -Gaon Sabha.
(2.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed today by Sri Manish bringing on record the measurement report in relation to the proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 as also the proceedings relating to Section 41 of the? 1901 Act in respect of the holding in question. The background of the dispute is that an application for correction of map was filed by the contesting respondents under Section 28 of the 1901 Act on the ground that the map incorrectly portrays the area of plot no.578, i.e. their holding by 0.12 acres. The contention appears to be that the area has not been correctly indicated on account of an increase of 0.05 acres having been shown in excess over plot no.576 and 0.07 acres in excess over plot no.590. Plot no.590, according to the revenue records, is entered as Banjar land which vests in the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner is claiming occupation over the said land on the ground that his constructions continue to exist along with other constructions and in such circumstances proceedings Section 28 of the 1901 Act could not have been proceeded without making the petitioner a party to the same. Accordingly, when the order came to be passed under Section 28 of the 1901 Act in favour of the respondents, the petitioner was, admittedly, not a party to the said proceedings. He, therefore, filed a restoration application which has been dismissed and then filed a revision which has also been dismissed.
(3.) SIMULTANEOUSLY , it also appears that after the orders under Section 28 of the 1901 Act were passed, proceedings for demarcation under Section 41 of the 1901 Act have been initiated and orders have been passed against which a revision has been filed and the said matter is still pending at the revisional stage.;