ANIL KUMAR,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Grirish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.E. Khan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 2 , Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and perused the record.
(2.) Controversy in the instant case relates to plots situated at village Ashipur, Bhagipur and Dariyapur. As per the case of the petitioner, the same was fraudulently added with revenue record in the name of opposite party no.3 along with the mother of petitioner/Yasoda Devi in Khatauni of 1363 -1365 Fasli year.
(3.) So Sri Ghanshyam son of Pudai Saroj resident of village Aasipur Pargana Patti Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh made a complaint dated 3.6.2009 before District Magistrate, Pratapgarh vide letter no. 1057/3.6.2009 for correction of the said entry in the revenue record, as such, a proceeding under Section 33/ 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 (herein after referred as ' Act') has been initiated. Accordingly, a Case No.41/37 (State Vs. Paras Nath alias Ramesh Chandra) has been registered in the Court of Sub Division Magistrate, Raniganj, Pratapgarh in which a report was called from the Naib Tehsildar, whether the complaint made by Ghanshyam is genuine or not.;