- (1.) HEARD Sri Saurabh Pathak for the petitioner and Sri S.M. Shukla for respondent -4.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Board of Revenue dated 8.9.2014 by which the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision of the petitioner and recalled the order dated 27.7.2011.
(3.) THE petitioner filed an application for conferring the right under Section 123 (1) of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") over an area of 0.025 acre of plot no. 418/1 situated in Mirzapur Tapp, pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Gorakhpur. On the allegation that the petitioner has constructed a house over the aforesaid land which is reserved for Harijan abadi about 25 years ago and the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste as such under Section 123 (1) of the Act the land over which construction has been raised by the petitioner be settled with him. On the application of the petitioner a report has been submitted by the Revenue Inspector mentioning therein that the application of the petitioner was not maintainable and same report has been submitted by the Naib Tehsildar also. However, the Sub Divisional Officer ignoring the reports of Revenue Inspector as well as Naib Tehsildar has allowed the application of the petitioner by order dated 26.12.2006 and settled the land in possession of the petitioner under Section 123 (1) of the Act. It is alleged that respondent -5 filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order on which the Sub Divisional Officer recalled the order dated 26.12.2006 without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order before Board of Revenue and initially Board of Revenue by order dated 27.7.2011 allowed the revision and set aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 3.10.2007 however one Deepak Kumar Dwivedi, Principal, ITI Collage, Lal Diggi, Gorakhpur filed an application for recall of the order on which the matter was again heard and Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 12.2.2013 recalled the order dated 27.7.2011 thereafter after hearing the petitioner the impugned order dated 8.9.2014 has been passed by which the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the recall application was highly time barred and has been filed without any application for condonation of delay. The Sub Divisional Officer has illegally allowed the recall application without issuing the notice to the petitioner and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the revision filed by the petitioner has been allowed by Board of Revenue by the order dated 27.7.2011. However the order dated 27.7.2011 has been recalled on the application of Deepak Kumar Dwivedi, respondent -3 who is a stranger to the proceeding. In such circumstances, the recall application was not maintainable. The order has already been passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has been occupation of the land in dispute for about 25 years and has raised construction over it, in such circumstances, the order was passed by Sub Divisional Officer on 26.12.2006 and there is no illegality in it. However, the revision of the petitioner has been illegally dismissed by Board of Revenue, UP.;