RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA),J. - (1.) Heard Sri A. P. Singh for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and Sri R. C. Upadhyay, Standing Counsel for State of UP.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner dated 18.5.2017 by which revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and revision filed by Ekhlak Ahmad, respondent-4 has been allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Collector for fresh decision on merit.
(3.) On the application of the petitioner for correction of map of plot no. 156 area 1.360 hectare of village Mahuwa, pargana Mahul, tehsil Phoolpur, Distt. Azamgarh proceeding under Section 28 of UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 was initiated. The Collector called for a report from Chief Tracer. The Chief Tracer has submitted report dated 9.6.2009 showing that area of plot no. 96 is less to the extent of 0.064 hectare and plot no. 156 was less to the extent of 0.160 hectare, while area of plot no. 95 was in excess to the extent of 0.250 hectare, plot no. 107 was in excess to the extent of 0.050 hectare, plot no. 108 was in excess to the extent of 0.053 hectare, plot no. 109 was in excess to the extent of 0.090 hectare and plot no. 155 was in excess to the extent of 0.019 hectare. The petitioner filed an objection to the report of Chief Tracer stating therein that plot no. 95, 96 and 155 were not properly measured by the Chief Tracer, thus variation of the area had not been properly noted in the report. However, the Additional Collector by order dated 30.3.2011 directed for correction of the map according to the report of Chief Tracer dated 9.6.2009 on the ground that he himself has made spot inspection. Both the parties challenged the order of Additional Collector in separate revisions before the Additional Commissioner. The revisions were consolidated and heard by the Additional Commissioner, who by the order dated 18.5.2017 allowed the revision of Ekhlak Ahmad, respondent-4 and set aside the order of Additional Collector dated 30.3.2011 and remanded the case before the Additional Collector. Since the order dated 30.3.2011 has entirely been set aside as such the revision of the petitioner ought to have been disposed of but it was dismissed.;