K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Rule 115-C of the UP ZA and LR Rules.
(2.) SRI Jaipal Singh, Pradhan, Land Management Committee, Sultanpatti filed an application against Nanak Chand (opposite party no. 4 in the present writ petition) for ejectment and damages on the allegations that the aforesaid Nanak Chand had encroached on plot no. 69 measuring 0.44 acres. The objector asserted that he had bonafide title to the disputed land and that the civil court had jurisdiction to eject the objector. The Tahsildar through his order dated 14-11-1973 dropped the proceedings against the contesting opposite party Nanak Chand as is evident from Annexure 'B' attached with the writ petition. Against the order of the Tahsildar, Gaon Sabha filed revision petition which was recommended to be rejected by the Additional Commissioner through his order dated 16-10-1974 (see Annexure 'C attached with the writ petition). Thereafter an objection was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha through the District Government Counsel against the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner as is evident from Annexure 'D' attached with the writ petition. The revision petition has been dismissed by Sri P. C. Saxena, I. A. S. Member Board of Revenue through his order dated 30th November, 1977. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court the Gaon Sabha has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the learned Member has patently erred in dismissing the revision petition as not maintainable. It has suggested that if the revision petition was defective, the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity to cure the defect. If the petitioner had failed to cure the defect the learned Member could dismiss the revision petition, but before affording an opportunity to the petitioner to cure the defect, if any, he has exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner and he has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law in not examining the claim of the petitioner on merits.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that the order passed by the revisional authority is quite correct. According to him paragraph 131 of U. P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual is mandatory. If the revision petition was not prosecuted by the counsel of the Gaon Sabha before the Board of Revenue, it was rightly rejected. He has also emphasised that in view of the decision reported in Babu Lal v. G. S. Hashimi, 1959 RD 172 a bonafide question of title arises, hence the proceedings were rightly dropped by the Tahsildar and the same has been maintained by the revisional court, hence no interference should be made with the impugned judgments. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the judgments attached with the writ petition and other documents also.;