JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Byas Kumar Prasad, learned counsel holding brief of Mohammad Mustafa Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Sri Byas Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Board of Revenue adopted a hyper technical view of the matter by failing to remit the matter to the competent court to proceed with the hearing of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The petitioner has instituted the appeal before the competent court under the relevant provisions. A miscarriage of justice has happened since the appeal of the petitioner has not been heard on merits by any competent court.

3. Sri Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents in his usual fairness does not dispute the aforesaid fact. He however defends the order of Board of Revenue and contends that the appellate authority misdirected itself in law by continuing the proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006. The same provisions were not applicable to the aforesaid proceedings.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Proceedings were instituted by the petitioner