Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.1.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Controlling Authority under the U.P. Regulation of Building Operation Act, 1958 and the revisional order dated 3.2.2000 passed by the Special Secretary, State Government.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that in respect of plot No. 117 situated in Mauza Arazi Imlag (Fatehpur Sikri), Agra, there was a dispute between the petitioner and the Nagar Palika with regard to the title of the land in question. The Prescribed Authority, Controlling Area Dayal Bagh, Agra by his order dated 18.7.1995 held that the petitioner was the rightful title holder of the land in question and that the land in dispute was being used by the Nagar Palika for tying impounded cattle.

After the order dated 18.7.1995 sanction had been granted to the petitioner with regard to the map for which an application has been made by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority.

3. Aggrieved by the said order the Nagar Palika, Fatehpur filed an appeal before the Commissioner under the U.P. Regulation of Building Operation Act who by the impugned order dated 18.1.2000 held that there was a dispute with regard to the title of the plot in question and that the number of the plot in question had not been mentioned in the order of the Commissioner and therefore, no map for construction could be sanctioned over the plot of which no number was given. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal filed by the Nagar Palika and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 18.7.1995.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2000 the petitioner preferred a revision before the State Government under the provisions of Section 15-A of the U.P. Regulation of Building Operation Act, 1958. The revisional authority by the impugned order dated 3.2.2000 has rejected the revision on the ground that there was a dispute between the Municipal Board, Fatehpur Sikri and the petitioner with regard to the title and against the order of the Civil Court passed in the title suit initiated by the petitioner, a second appeal filed by the Nagar Palika, was pending in the High Court.

5. I have heard Shri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the State respondents.

From a perusal of the impugned order as well as the documentary material available on record, it is seen that one Raghuveer Dayal who is stated to be the grandfather of the petitioner had filed suit No. 236 of 1961 which was decreed against the Municipal Board on 15.4.1968. Aggrieved by the said order, the Municipal Board filed an appeal which was dismissed on 17.7.1989. Against this order the Municipal Board preferred a second appeal No. (D) 46 of 1990 before the High Court. This second appeal is stated to be still pending as a defective appeal and the defect has not been removed since 1990.

6. In the meantime, the petitioner applied before the Prescribed Authority for sanction of map for making construction over the land in question. The Prescribed Authority after considering the entire fact situation of the case held that the petitioner was the owner of the plot in question being plot No. 117 and that the Nagar Palika Parishad, Fatehpur Sikri was utilising the said plot for tying impounded cattle and on the basis of this finding the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 18.7.1995 sanctioned the map of the petitioner and held the petitioner to be the owner of the land in question.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.1995, the Nagar Palika Parishad filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Controlling Authority who by the impugned order dated 18.1.2000 held that the order of the Prescribed Authority was illegal inasmuch as sanction had been granted over a plot of which no number was given and there was a civil suit with regard to title between the Nagar Palika Parishad and the petitio