VIKRAM NATH,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State, respondents.
(2.) DESPITE notices having been sent to respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the year 1997, no one has appeared on their behalf. Office has submitted a report that neither the undelivered cover nor the acknowledgment card has been received back. Service is deemed to be sufficient upon the respondent nos. 4 and 5. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, under Section 333 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, was dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable as it arises out of proceedings under Section 122C-6 of the U.P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and Rule 115-P of the Rules framed under the Act. The second revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue. These orders have been assailed in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Wahajuddin Vs. Board of Revenue, U. P. AT Allahabad and others reported in 2002 (93) 186 wherein this Court has held that revision would be maintainable against the order passed in proceedings under Rule 115-P of the Rules. This petition therefore, deserves to be allowed. As the Additional Commissioner has passed two line order dismissing the revision on the ground of maintainability, the same is liable to be quashed.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.;