Rajbali Lal vs State of U.P.and Others

Ran Vijai Singh, J.

In substance, petitioner appears to be aggrieved by inaction of respondents No. 2 and 3 in not recording the petitioner''s name, pursuant to the orders dated 21.12.1998 and 19.03.2004, passed by Naib Tehsildar, Saidpur, Ghazipur and Collector, Ghazipur, respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has filed an application under Rule 135 of the Rules framed under U.P. Land Revenue Act before the competent authority. Rule 135 of the Rules under U.P. Land Revenue Act reads as under:=

"135. Incorporation of orders. When during the course of the fairing of record an order for change in entries is received from the Record Officer or any other competent court, necessary correction will be made at once in all the records which are effected by the order directly or indirectly. If the order is not clear or does not cover all consequent changes in corresponding records the matter will be referred to the Record Officer for orders.

Corrections required in any record by an order received after fairing will be noted in the remarks column under the signature of the Record Officer or a responsible subordinate authorized by him for the purpose giving fulldetails of the order and the court which passed it."

In view of that, in case the petitioner files an application under Rule 135 of the Rules framed under U.P. Land Revenue Act before the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. In case the petitioner''s case is found to be genuine, the necessary entry be made in the revenue record.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of.