- (1.) Case called on. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The members of the Bar have abstained from judicial work. Sri Satish Mohan Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,3 and 5.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed seeking the following material relief: "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.1. i.e. The Hon'ble Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad to decide the Revision No.27 of 2007-2008 (Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Kaushal Kishore Mishra) under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act expeditiously, preferably within a stipulated time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
(3.) It appears that an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gonda, seeking permission for exchange of plot No.1832 with Plot No.1831, which are the respective plots of the petitioner and the third respondent. In the said proceedings for exchange, though respondent No.2 had no concern, he filed objections along with an Impleadment Application in order to harass the petitioner. The petitioner's application came to be dismissed in default. He moved a Restoration Application before the Court of first instance where the proceedings were restored to file and a date was fixed for hearing of objections filed by respondent No.2. This order was made on 10.03.2008. The second respondent filed Revision No. 517 of 2008 before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda. This Revision was clearly not maintainable, according to the petitioner, because respondent No.2 was not the party to the proceedings for exchange, brought on an application by the petitioner vis-a-vis his holding and that of respondent No.3 in particular plots. The petitioner says that respondent No.2 had butted it. Moreover, there was no final order passed on his objections against which, he would apply in Revision. Nevertheless, the Additional Commissioner (Administration) went beyond his jurisdiction and allowed the Revision vide his order dated 10.06.2008.;