SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN,J - (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby allowing the revision filed by opposite party no.2.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present dispute, are that a lease deed of land of Khasra No.335 measuring 1.261 hectares situate at Village Dhawan, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow was initially executed in favour of opposite party no.3, Iqbal Ahamd Son of Late Hasmat Ahmad and thereafter his name was recorded vide order dated 7.6.1992 by the Additional Tehsildar in Case No.728A/3.4.1992, Iqbal Ahmad vs. Kallu and Gaon Sabha. On 29.6.1992 the aforesaid documents were returned on the application moved by Iqbal Ahmad. The entry continued in the name of opposite party no.3 and on 28.11.1998 he was declared as bhumidhar by virtue of the Government Order dated 15.3.1995 and the same was recorded in the Khatauni dated 11.1.2000. The said land was thereafter sold in favour of Brajendra Murari, opposite party no.4 on 21.2.2000 by opposite party no.3 and thereafter name of opposite party no.4 was mutated on 6.2.2000. On 18.5.2011 opposite party no.4 sold the aforesaid land to Rajat Degree College, Dhawan, Deva Road, Lucknow being run by the Rajan Educational Trust, Faizabad Road, Lucknow. Thereafter, the third sale deed was executed by the Rajat Degree College in favour of the petitioner on 16.12.2011, consequence thereof name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records on 15.2.2012. It is alleged that thereafter an application was moved by the State under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act ( for short 'the Act') against opposite party no.3 on 27.4.2001, in which opposite party no.4 moved an application for impleadment on 10.12.2001, which was allowed. Later on, the aforesaid case was dismissed by the Additional Collector on 31.10.2011. Opposite party no.2 alleging himself to be a Member of the Land Management Committee, moved a complaint to the Board of Revenue on 23.3.2012, which was registered as Revision No.1386 LR 2011 -12 under Section 219 of the Act. On 29.3.2012 the Board of Revenue passed an order directing the Commissioner, Lucknow to hold an enquiry on the basis of observation made in the body of the order and submit a report and thereafter the matter was listed for hearing without issuing notices to the petitioner and other proforma opposite parties arrayed as parties in the revision. Against the said order, petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.2872 (MS) of 2012, which is pending for adjudication. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue without waiting for the report from the Commissioner, proceeded to allow the revision by the impugned order dated 29.10.2013. Hence this petition.
(3.) SUBMISSION of counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before allowing the revision. He has further submitted that the complaint moved by opposite party no.2 could not have been treated as revision and there ought to have been a proper resolution by the Gaon Sabha for filing the revision, but neither any such resolution nor any permission has been brought on record from the Collector to file the revision. The revision filed by opposite party no.2 is not maintainable as he was having no power in individual capacity to move a complaint, which has been treated as revision. It is submitted that Patta as well as mutation order has been held to be valid vide order dated 31.7.2001 and against the said order, Gaon Sabha did not approach any higher forum or any higher Court, therefore, the order dated 31.7.2001 operates as res judicata to the subsequent proceedings initiated by the opposite parties. It is also submitted that neither the lower court record was perused nor summoned and the revision was allowed without application of mind. The sale deed was executed the opposite party no.3 after he was declared bhumidhar vide order dated 28.11.1998 in pursuance to the Government Order dated 15.3.1995 and, therefore, he was having full authority to execute the sale deed. The validity of the patta has been determined time and again and, therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue thereby remanding the matter to the Sub -Divisional Magistrate for scrutinizing the validity of the patta is altogether baseless and without application of mind. The Board of Revenue ought to have waited for the report from the Commissioner concerned as earlier directed by it vide order dated 29.3.2012, but without receiving any report from the Commissioner, the revision was decided in a hurried manner. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the patta was doubtful, which is alleged to have been executed in favour of opposite party no.3 and, therefore, the Board of Revenue has committed no illegality in remanding the matter for scrutinizing the validity of the Patta. He has further submitted that if the patta is found to be illegal or suspicious, then the subsequent right will not accrue in favour of the petitioner.;