- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.
(2.) Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Second, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against an order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the Tehsildar, (Judicial), Tanda, district-Ambedkar Nagar has been dismissed. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Additional Commissioner while deciding the revision petition by the impugned order dated 11.04.2018 has completely misdirected himself inasmuch as in the said order he has not taken into account the facts of the case, which was pending between the petitioner and respondent nos.3 to 5; rather he has extracted certain facts relating to some other case. In this view, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 11.04.2018 is not sustainable.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel and perused the records available on this writ petition, though the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct to the extent that the Additional Commissioner while passing the impugned order has not taken into account the fact of the case, which is being contested between the petitioner and respondent nos.3 to 5; rather he has extracted certain facts pertaining to some other matter in the case of Abdul Rahim vs. Makbul Khan, however for the reasons, which are to follow. I am not inclined to interfere in the order impugned herein. The facts of the case, which are not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the recorded tenure holder of the land in question was one Bhagwan Das, who is said to have executed some agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner-Ram Ugrah Singh on 05.04.2001. However, in terms of the said agreement to sell dated 05.04.2001 the original recorded tenure holder late Bhagwan Das did not execute any sale deed and thus the petitioner has instituted a civil suit claiming relief of specific performance of the said contract/agreement dated 05.04.2001. The fact, however, remains that the said suit is still pending.;