Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.B. Chaturvedi for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for State of U.P., Sri D.D. Chauhan, Standing Counsel for Gaon Sabha and Sri B.B. Jauhari holding brief of Sri S.K. Srivastava for respondent -6. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 22.8.2009 by which the name of the petitioner has been directed to be deleted from plot No. 121 area 0.0100 hectare of village Chandapara alias Shohratgarh, Tapp Barhon, Pargana Naugarh Distt. Siddharth Nagar. It is alleged that Land Management passed a resolution for allotment of plot No. 121 to the petitioner however the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 13.7.1993 did not grant approval of the resolution passed in respect of plot No. 121. In spite of the resolution was not fully approved, name of the petitioner was recorded on plot No. 121. Thereafter Smt. Kamlesh Gupta filed an application under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue for deleting the name of the petitioner from plot No. 121. The Sub Divisional Officer after hearing the parties by order dated 22.8.2009 found that no patta of plot No. 121 was granted to Smt. Sudama Devi, the petitioner, but her name was wrongly recorded over it and accordingly he directed for deleting the name of the petitioner from plot No. 121. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 3.12.2010 and the order of Sub -Divisional Officer dated 22.8.2009 was set aside. Smt. Kamlesh Gupta filed a revision against the aforesaid order before the Board of Revenue which was allowed by the order dated 9.9.2014 and the order of Additional Commissioner dated 3.12.2010 was set aside and the order of Sub -Divisional Officer dated 22.8.2009 was restored. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. A perusal of the resolution as well as approval granted of it shows that Sub -Divisional Officer by detailed reason did not approve the allotment of plot No. 121 to the petitioner. In the absence of there being any allotment to the petitioner of plot No. 121, it has been rightly directed to delete the name of the petitioner from plot No. 121 and the impugned orders passed by Board of Revenue as well as the Sub Divisional Officer do not suffer from any illegality. So far as the contention of the petitioner that name of Smt. Kamlesh Gupta has also been illegally recorded over plot No. 121 however respondent -6 submits that the land in dispute was allotted to Smt. Kamlesh Gupta and in pursuance of a valid allotment her name was recorded as bhumidhar with non transferable right and name of the petitioner was required to be deleted.
(3.) SINCE the impugned orders are not in respect of deletion of the name of Smt. Kamlesh Gupta as such this is not proper for this Court to go into the controversy in this respect. However, it shall be open to the parties to move a proper application before the Sub Divisional Officer in this respect. The writ petition is dismissed.;