Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
(2.) These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 31.11.2016, 17.07.2006, passed by the Board of Revenue and the order dated 28.06.1994, passed by the Collector/Record Officer, District Sonbhadra.
(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the names of the petitioners in the relevant revenue records in respect of the land in question were ordered to be recorded by means of order dated 05.02.1989, passed by the Survey Naib Tehsildar conferring Bhumidhari rights on the petitioners in terms of the provision contained in Section 131-A of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the said order dated 05.02.1989 has been set aside by the Record Officer/Collector, Sonbhadra by the impugned order dated 28.06.1994 without appropriately disclosing as to under which provision of law, the said order has been passed. Sri Mishra has vehemently argued that neither any provision under U.P. Land Revenue Act nor U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act exists which empowers the Record Officer/Collector to pass the order dated 28.06.1994. He has stated that once the rights in favour of the petitioners were conferred in terms of Section 131-A of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, then solely on the basis of inspection report dated 24.06.1994, that too, based on the inspection conducted by the Record Officer/Collector himself, the impugned order could not have been passed which ultimately has resulted in divesting the petitioners of their rights conferred on the basis of dated 05.02.1989, passed by the Survey Naib Tehsildar giving the benefit of Section 131-A of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. He has, thus, stated that Board of Revenue while deciding the revision petition, vide order dated 17.07.2006 and also while deciding the review petition, vide order dated 31.11.2016 has completely ignored the aforesaid legal aspect of the matter, as such the orders dated 17.07.2006 and 31.11.2016, passed by the Board of Revenue are liable to be set aside.;