Point of Law : It is now well settled that under writ jurisdiction, the Court will not exercise its powers to interfere in an order and set it aside by an order, the ultimate effect of which would be to revive or give rise to another illegal order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Amitesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Shri Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent No.11 and Shri Yogesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit after serving a copy thereof on the learned counsel for the State-respondents as well as the private-respondents, which is taken on record.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

4. Under challenge is the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, whereby the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 02.06.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar has been upheld.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, certain facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed hereinafter, first.

6. The petitioner Smt. Fatma Kubra initially moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, wherein it was stated that the petitioner has a house constructed over Gata No.1210(M) measuring 0.006 hectares, situate at Wajidpur Town, Pargana Surhurpur, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Amebedkar Nagar, apart from the house, the petitioner also has a shop constructed over the land wherein she is residing along with her family. It was prayed that the Gata No.1210(M) has been divided amongst the family members and she has received her share and on her share, she has raised construction. Since, the land is being used for purposes other than agriculture, accordingly, the land may be declared as 'abadi'. The said application has been brought on record as Annexure No.3.

7. Initially on the application moved by the petitioner, a report was called for which was filed on 30.01.2004. Upon an inspection made by Naib Tehsildar, it was found that Plot No.1210(M) was recorded in the revenue records in the name of Mehandi Hasan, Murtaza Husain, Raza Husain and Abdul Hasan. Upon an inspection, it was found that the aforesaid Plot No.1210(M) had constructions and the tenure holders had raised residential construction, which was in the shape of 'abadi' and it was also proposed in the report that the land can be recorded under the Category 6(2) as 'abadi'.

8. Considering the aforesaid report, the Sub-Divisional Officer by means of the order dated 31.03.2006 held that Gata No.1210(M) measuring 0.003 hectares which is recorded in the name of Mehandi Hasan and others and is in the shape of an 'abadi' house, the same may be placed in Category 6(2) as 'abadi' after deleting the names of the other co-tenure holders.

9. This order dated 31.03.2006 became the subject matter of controversy inasmuch as Mohasin Raza, Kalbe Husain, Murtaza Husain, Zafar Husain and Dawar Husain filed a revision against the order dated 31.03.2006 whereas simultaneously Abdul Hasan, the respondent No.5 moved an application for recall of the order dated 31.03.2006. The memo of revision preferred by the some of the tenure holders as mentioned above has been brought on record as Annexure No.7 while the application for recall moved by the respondent No.5 has been brought on record as Annexure No.8. Thus, it would be seen against the order dated 31.03.2006 two proceedings were initiated, one for recall by the respondent No.5 and the other was a revision preferred by the other tenure holders.

10. During pendency of the revision preferred, by few of the tenure holders, the application for recall was considered and heard by the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned and the said order dated 31.03.2006 was set aside by means of the order dated 02.06.2010. While passing of the order dated 02.06.2010, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order that the names of the co-tenure hol