Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) -Heard Sri H. S. N. Tripathi advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Vimlesh Kumar advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and 10 to 14 and standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 18.
(2.) PETITIONER, Sheo Kumar, has filed this writ petition against the order dated 17.7.2003, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naraini, district Banda in Case No. 33 of 2002 in proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. By means of the said order the Sub-Divisional Officer Naraini, has held that the names of Sri Shyam Lal son of Laxmi Prasad, Bachoo and Maikoo sons of Ram Das, Badi alias Ram Sikhiya widow of Ram Das, Santosh and Sant Ram sons of Ram Kumar residents of village Bhakhuri are to be recorded in the relevant revenue records in compliance of the order dated 7.1.1997, passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi which has since been affirmed by the Board of Revenue at Allahabad by order dated 20th May, 1997. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is a void order inasmuch as the respondents are residents of Madhya Pradesh and therefore no patta could have been executed in their favour under Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Even otherwise it is contended that the order is arbitrary and it is a clear case of non-application of mind inasmuch as the earlier order dated 22.4.2002, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer which was based on the reports of revenue authorities has not been taken into consideration. Lastly it is contended that the patta holders had illegally transferred the said property to a third set of persons. The patta holders themselves had no right and therefore the transfer deed executed by them is null and void and is liable to be quashed. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is only in the nature of execution of the order dated 7.1.1997, passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in the proceedings which were undertaken for cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the persons concerned. The said order passed by the Commissioner has since been affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 20.5.1997. The said orders dated 7.1.1997 and 20.5.1997 passed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue respectively have not been challenged by any aggrieved party and the same have become final. The petitioner who is only an allottee of Gaon Sabha cannot be permitted to raise the controversy all over again. Lastly it is contended that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever if the land has been transferred by the patta holders and no right of the petitioner has been affected and therefore he has no right to file this writ petition. The present writ petition is an abuse of the process of the Court.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is apparently clear that the petitioner, except for making vague allegations in para 3 that the respondents fictitiously got their names recorded in the revenue records, has not made any reference to the proceedings which had taken place in respect of the cancellation of the patta of the respondents-3rd set. The facts in that regard are born out from the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer which has been challenged in the present writ petition, which read as follows : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The aforesaid proceedings were not subjected to any further challenge. So far as the allotment of patta is concerned the same stood final between respondents-3rd set and the Gaon Sabha who were contesting parties in said proceedings. Even in the present writ petition the order dated 7.1.1997, passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and the order dated 20.5.1997, passed by the Board of Revenue have not been challenged nor any relief in that regard has been prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The controversy with regard to grant of patta to the respondents-3rd set having become final between the parties under the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, as aforesaid, the petitioners cannot be permitted to reopen the settled controversy for the first time in the present writ petition on new grounds, namely that the 3rd set of respondents are residents of Madhya Pradesh.;