AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Abhinava Upadhya, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava and learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on account of nonavailability of the Presiding Officer, the date fixed in the revision No.2189 (L.R.) 20082009 filed by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Commissioner under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act dated 22.4.2009, is 3rd September, 2009.
The apprehension of the petitioner is that the Tehsildar may pass final orders in the mutation proceedings that are being conducted by him, pursuant to the orders of the Additional Commissioner dated 22.4.2009. Under the circumstances, he prays that the Board of Revenue be directed to consider and decide the revision of the petitioner at an early date.
Since the Board of Revenue has already fixed 3rd September, 2009 for considering the revision of the petitioner, I do not see any valid apprehension of the petitioner that the Board of Revenue will not consider the case of the petitioner on the said date and if he is entitled for any interim order, the same will not be granted to him.
So far as the mutation proceedings pending before the Tehsildar is concerned, it is directed that if any final order is passed by the Tehsildar, the same shall be subject to the decision or any interim order passed in the revision preferred by the petitioner being revision No.2189 (L.R.) 20082009.
With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.