Nathuni Singh vs Board of Revenue And Others

Hon''ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Collector, Deoria as respondent no.4 during course of the day on whose behalf notice has been accepted by the learned standing counsel.

The present writ petition arises out of proceedings for correction of records u/s 33/39 of the U.P.Land Revenue Act, 1901. At first flush the proceedings may appear to be simply summary and the petitioner may have a remedy of still contesting the matter before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deoria, where the matter is pending, yet in the back ground of the case and the peculiar circumstances that have been narrated, this prima facie appears to be an abuse of the process of the system and an inappropriate excuse by the Revising Authority to nullify the impact of the judgment and decree of the civil court that has been affirmed up to the Supreme Court.

The back ground in which the proceedings have arisen therefore impel this Court to issue notices calling upon the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deoria to furnish his explanation through an affidavit with a further direction to the Collector, Deoria to submit a report to this Court as to under what circumstances the proceedings u/s 33/39 for correction of records in terms of the judgment and decree of the civil court have not been carried out. The relevance of the present proceedings is fortified by the order dated 13.9.2020 of the Board of Revenue,Annexure 10 to the writ petition, and further the attempt of the respondent no.3 before this Court in Writ Petition No. 64370 of 2010 where he abandoned his claim. The aforesaid fact is relevant as this abandonment of the respondent no.3 is in relation to the present proceedings u/s 33/39 itself.

This Court wants to know from the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Collector, Deoria as to under what circumstances now an inquiry is being made through the impugned order once the respondent no.3 himself abandoned his claim thereby rendering the order dated 13.9.2010 passed by the Bord of Revenue final.

Prima facie in the opinion of the Court, the action which has been taken by Sri Ajay Kant Saini the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoria is contemptuous and seems to be a defiance of the direction of the Board of Revenue dated 13.9.2010 which had been assailed by the respondent no.3 in a writ petition which claim was voluntarily abandoned as recorded in the order dated 28.10.2010. The affidavits to be filed by the Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer are therefore necessary in order to prevent any further mis-carriage of justice and in the aforesaid back ground the petition deserves to be entertained for correction of the said error as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through a writ of certiorari.

All further proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon respondent no.3 by registered post within 3 days. He shall also be served notice by the Sub Divisional Officer himself in order to ensure that the respondent no.3 also files his response to this petition within 3 weeks. List immediately thereafter.

A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned standing counsel free of costs for being communicated to the Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer,Deoria.