Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel, Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel representing the Land Management Committee concerned and Shri Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel representing the respondent no.5.
(2.) Since no factual dispute at this stage in these proceedings is involved, I do not find any reason to permit the respondent no.5 to file any counter affidavit.
(3.) Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 04.01.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sitapur whereby the application moved by the petitioner under section 144 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking a declaration that the land in question is being utilized for agricultural purposes, has been rejected. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 04.01.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer by preferring an appeal under section 331(3) of the Act before the Collector, who too, vide his order dated 19.09.2014 has dismissed the appeal. The orders dated 04.01.2014 and 19.09.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Collector respectively were subjected to the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under section 333 of the Act which has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 13.02.2017. Apart from the order dated 04.01.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner has also challenged the orders dated 19.09.2014 and 13.02.2017 passed by the Collector and Board of Revenue respectively.;