ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri B. Dayal for the Meerut Development Authority and Shri Mahesh Narain Singh for the respondent no. 5, the Gaon Sabha. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and seeks quashing of the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Meerut.
(2.) The dispute in the writ petition pertain to plot no. 190 area 0.391 hectares situated in Village Ghosipur, Tehsil and District Meerut. It appears that on the initiation of proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act for eviction of the petitioner, the Tehsildar vide order dated 18.04.2013, discharged the notice issued to the petitioner in Form 49-A, in view of a decision of the Civil Court dated 07.02.2009 decreeing Suit No. 550 of 1993, filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order dropping the proceedings, the State of U.P. preferred a revision. This revision has been allowed vide order dated 12.06.2019. The order passed by the Tehsildar, dated 18.04.2013, has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back for passing a fresh order after hearing the parties. It is this order of remand, which is impugned in the writ petition.
(3.) The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the land in dispute is recorded as abadi in the revenue record. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 122-B/Rule 115-C were not maintainable. The impugned order has wrongly been passed on the premise that the land is recorded as Khalihan, which is factually incorrect. It is also contended that proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were not maintainable also in view of the fact that a civil suit filed by the petitioners regarding the same land had already been decreed in their favour. Counsel appearing for the respondents have supported that the order impugned to submit that it is an order of remand and, therefore, this Court should not interfere. It has also been stated that a categorical finding has been returned in the impugned order of remand that the concerned Gaon Sabha or the State of U.P. were not parties in the civil suit and, therefore, the decree is not binding upon them. ;