VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Munesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Sri Girish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4.
(2.) Present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 27.4.2001 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Bilari, Moradabad and order dated 26.3.2002 passed by respondent no. 3-Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector-1st Class, Bilari, Moradabad and order dated 16.1.2017 passed by Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow.
(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition that the present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and as such this writ petition would not be maintainable. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow reported in 2013 Law Suit (All) 707 and order dated 8.9.2015 passed in Writ B No. 50844 of 2015, Vibhuti Narayan Singh and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 6 others , relevant extract whereof is quoted as under: "In any case the writ petition is arising out of the proceeding under Section 34 of UP Land Revenue Act and this Court has consistently taken a view that writ petition is not maintainable in such cases. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in Vishwanath and others v. Board of Revenue, 2004 (4) AWC, 3141, Madhav Pandey v. Board of Revenue, 2002 (2) AWC 1311 and Bindeshwari v. Board of Revenue 2002 (1) AWC 498 . In those cases this Court has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench in Jaipal (minor) v. Board of Revenue, U.P., AIR, 1956 ALJ 807 in which it has been held that orders passed under Section 34 of UP Land Revenue Act cannot be challenged in the writ petition. In view of the aforesaid settled view of this Court, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability.";