- (1.) JANARDAN Sahai, J. The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. An application for mutation was filed by the respondent No. 2 Life Insurance Corporation of India. The case of the Life Insurance Corporation is that Shri Nath Gupta was the original tenure- holder. He transferred the land in dispute in favour of Bharat Stores and Bharat Stores in turn transferred it to Swadeshi Beema Company Ltd. , which merged in the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956. It is alleged that the name of the life Insurance Corporation of India was mutated over the disputed land in the year 1965. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the order of mutation, which was allowed in the year 1985 and the order of mutation was set aside and the mutation case was restored. The mutation application was thereafter dismissed in default on 16- 2-2001 against which order the Life Insurance Corporation of India filed a restoration application, which was dismissed against which an appeal as filed which was dismissed on 30-12- 2002 and against these orders the Life Insurance Corporation preferred a revision, which is pending before the Board of Revenue. Before the Board of Revenue an application was filed by the petitioner that an order dated 12-7-2002 under Section 143 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act has been passed whereby the land in dispute has been declared as abadi and has ceased to be land and that the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction and the revision before Board of Revenue has to be dismissed. On this application of the petitioner the Board of Revenue passed the impugned order dated 18-5-2005 by which it has held that the order dated 12-7- 2002 is in breach of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and it has fixed a date for hearing the revision of the Life Insurance Corporation.
(2.) I have heard Sri Pramod Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 Life Insurance Corporation of India. From the facts that have been set out above it is clear that the revision, which is pending before the Board of Revenue arises out of proceedings in a restoration application arising out of a case under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. The scope of the revision was, therefore, confined to the merits of the restoration application filed by the Life Insurance Corporation. The question of the validity of the order dated 12- 7-2002 is not directly involved. The finding recorded by the Board of Revenue that the order dated 12-7-2002 is illegal is therefore, outside the scope of the revision. Moreso as this finding cannot have any binding effect upon Ashish Sharma on whose application the order under Section 143 was passed, as Ashish Sharma admittedly is not a party in the revision. The contention of the petitioner that the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction in the matter to decide the revision is misconceived. The revision arises out of proceedings in a restoration case and for the purposes of restoration it is not necessary to decide the validity and effect of the order under Section 143 U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. For the reasons given above the findings given the Board of Revenue regarding the invalidity of the order under Section 143 U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act is set aside. It would be open to the parties concerned to raise the question before the Mutation Court in case the mutation case is restored. The Board of Revenue shall now dispose of the revision of the respondent No. 2 Life Insurance Corporation of India expeditiously and if possible on the next date. Petition partly allowed. .;