RAN VIJAI SINGH, J. - (1.) ON 11.2.2014 this Court has passed the following order: "By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 21.1.1998 passed by the Sub -divisional Officer Sadar Jaunpur in restoration application filed by the Gaon Sabha and the respondent no. 5 and order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial -I), Varanasi Division, Varahasi in Revision No. 75/98 (Ram Lakhan Vs. Gaon Sabha and others).
(2.) THE petitioner has claimed benefit of Section 122 -B (4F) of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act ') over a piece of land situated over Plot No. 347 measuring about 0.145 hectare situated in Village Para Patti, Pargana Havely, District Jaunpur. The Lekhpal, who happens to be Secretary of the Land Management Committee, has submitted his report on 1.5.1997 to the Sub - Divisional Officer stating therein that adjacent to the land in dispute, the petitioner's chak is there and the petitioner has also encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land and is in possession over the same. The Revenue Inspector has also filed the same kind of report on 10.5.1997. The Tehsildar, thereafter, has submitted the same report on 30.5.1997. Taking note of that, the Sub -Divisional Officer has declared the petitioner as bhumidhar with non -transferable right and directed for recording the petitioner's name in place of the Gaon Sabha.
(3.) IN turn, the respondent no. 5 and the Pradhan have filed restoration application. The case of the respondent no. 5 was that he is in possession over the land in dispute and the entire proceeding is farce and exparte. The village Pradhan has also stated that without there being any notice to the Gaon Sabha, the impugned order has been passed. The restoration application was allowed on 21.1.1998 and the matter was directed to be heard again with the liberty to the parties to adduce their evidence in support of their case. The petitioner has filed revision against the aforesaid order that has been dismissed holding it to be not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the report of Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector and Tehslidar, the petitoner was extended benefit under Section 122 -B (4F) of the Act and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Manorey Vs Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. and others 2003 (94) RD 538, since it is a deeming provision, therefore the property is vested in the petitioner after satisfying the ingredients as contained in the aforesaid section. In his submissions, the Sub -Divisional Officer has erred in entertaining the restoration application. He has further contended that no resolution was passed by the Gaon sabha and the Pradahn himself through private lawyer has filed restoration application therefore also this application was not maintainable.;