ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) A preliminary objections has been raised by Shri Triveni Shankar appearing for the respondents that there is a statutory alternate remedy of filing revision under Section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the impugned order dated 12 -9 -2003 passed by Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in the revision, which was filed by the respondents, hence the writ petition cannot be entertained. The brief facts necessary for deciding the preliminary objection raised by the respondents are a proceedings under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act) were initiated on 18 -7 -1995 by the contesting respondents. Order was passed by the Chief Revenue Officer dated 14 -8 -2001 rejecting the application. A revision was filed by the contesting respondents against the said order before the Additional Commissioner Kedar Nath v. Pardeshi and others. The Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 12 -9 -2003 allowed the revision and set aside the order of Chief Revenue Officer dated 14 -8 -2001. The revisional Court remitted the file to the trial Court. Against the order dated 12 -9 -2003 passed by Additional Commissioner this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE submission of the Counsel for the respondents is that the revision which has been allowed by the Additional Commissioner by the revisional Court was filed by the respondents, the petitioner is free to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue. The Counsel submitted that prohibition of invoking the revisional jurisdiction brought in the statute by amendment of U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997 is on the person who has moved a revision either before the Board or to the Commissioner. The submission is that since the revision application was filed by the respondents, Section 333(2) of the Act is not attracted and at the instance of the petitioner the revision is maintainable. Reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the respondents on the judgment of this Court reported in 2002(2) AWC 1144, Dinesh and others v. Board of Revenue and others. This Court while considering Section 332(2) held that same person cannot file two revisions. It was held in paragraph 15. 15. There is one more reason due to which the order of Board of Revenue cannot be sustained. Section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was amended by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997 with effect from 14 -10 -1997, the amended provision of Section 333 has been quoted above in this judgment. By the said amendment Section 333(2) has been added with effect from 14 -10 -1997 that if any application under the Section has been moved by any person either to the Board or to the Commissioner or to the Additional Commissioner, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by either of them. This clearly meant that same person cannot file two revisions.;