Ran Vijai Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rakesh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State -respondents, Sri J.M. Nasir learned Counsel for private respondents and Sri R. Yadav holding brief of Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.6.2013 passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Muzaffarnagar in Case No. 18/2011 (Hashmat v. Anwar) and the order dated 28.1.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, (Judicial) Saharanpur Division Saharanpur in Revision No. 17/2013 -14 (Zulfiqar Ali v. Nafees Ahmad and others). Vide order dated 11.6.2013 the Sub Divisional Officer has modified his earlier order by making the following observations:
(2.) AGAINST this order the revision was filed that has been dismissed. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondents herein have filed Suit No. 16/97 under section 229 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17.8.1998 and 26.8.1998. Against the aforesaid decree an appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur. which too was dismissed on 13.1.2000. It is against this judgment and decree Revision No. 21/2000 -01 (Mohd. Usman v. Mohd. Ikram) was filed before the Board of Revenue. Learned Member, Board of Revenue has allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and remanded the matter before the Trial Court for deciding the suit afresh. Operative portion of the judgment dated 25.3.2003 is reproduced herein below:
(3.) THEREAFTER an application was filed before the Sub -Divisional Officer for making the endorsement in the revenue record. The entry was made in detail. The other side has also filed an application that only operative portion of the judgment of the Board of Revenue ought to have been recorded in the revenue record. The said. application was allowed and operative portion of the judgment of the Board of Revenue was recorded in the revenue record. It is against this order a revision was filed which has been dismissed.;