SALIL KUMAR RAI ,J. - (1.) List has been revised. Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, counsel for the petitioner is present. The Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1 and 2 is also present. No one appears for respondent no.4.
(2.) The petitioner was granted abadi Patta by the concerned Land Management Committee which was subsequently approved by the competent reveneue authorities. It appears that on some complaint, Case No.18 of 2001 under Rule 115-P of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1952) was registered in the Court of Additional Collector, Sonbhadra i.e. respondent no.2 against the petitioner. The said case was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Sonbhadra vide his order dated 31.1.2005. In his order dated 31.1.2005, the Additional Collector, Sonbhadra recorded a finding that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was in accordance with law. In the aforesaid Case No.18 of 2001, the respondent no.4 filed a review application praying for review of the order dated 31.1.2005. The respondent no. 2 vide his order dated 19.5.2005 partly allowed the said review application and modified the order dated 31.1.2005 even though in the operative portion of the order dated 19.5.2005, the Additional Collector recorded his opinion that no interference was required in the order dated 31.1.2005.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated dated 19.5.2005 passed by the Additional Collector, the petitioner filed Revision No.20 of 2006 before the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur which was allowed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 15.9.2006 mainly on the ground that the Additional Collector did have the power to review his order dated 31.1.2005. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.9.2006, the respondent no.4 filed Revision No.5 of 2006-07 before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 6.5.2015 and the order dated 19.5.2005 passed by the Additional Collector has been restored after setting aside the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the Commissioner. The order dated 6.5.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue has been challenged in the present writ petition.;