SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.10.2006 passed by Revisional Court in Revision No. 39 of 2006 and the order dated 14.6.2006 passed in case no. 193 under Section 122 B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act').
(2.) The petitioner was in possession over the plot no. 937 (area 9 biswas) and had perfected his rights over the same. However, proceedings were initiated against him by the issuance of notices under Section 122 B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Thereafter upon finding that the petitioner was to be given the benefit of Section 122B(4F) the proceedings were dropped on 5.6.1990 and he was declared a Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights. Almost after 14 years, an application was filed for recalling of the order dated 5.6.1990 and on 14.6.2006, the order impugned was passed. On 19.10.2006 the order dated 14.6.2006 was upheld by the Revisional Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding as had been arrived at in the order dated 14.6.2006 was erroneous as the Tehsildar wrongly found that the plot in question was entered as a "Marghat" (a place for the disposal of the dead). He submits that as a matter of fact by an order dated 27.12.1989 of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) the old plot no. 281 was declared as "Marghat" and plot no. 616(old) (937 new) was held not to be a "Marghat". On this very fact, learned counsel submits, the proceedings were dropped on 5.6.1990. Even before the order of the S.O.C. dated 27.12.1989 was passed, the old plot no. 616 was entered as Marghat and by the order of the S.O.C. the mistake was rectified and the plot no. 281 was held to be a Marghat. When the proceedings were restored, the petitioner had brought to the notice of the Court, the order of the S.O.C. dated 27.12.1989 but this order was ignored and no attention was paid to it and, therefore, an erroneous order was passed.;