JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, leaned Standing Counsel for the State and perused material available on record.

2. None appeared from the side of respondent no. 5.

3. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 22.09.1999(Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 2 in Revision No. 42/156 (Ram Milan vs. Bhola and Others) by which the Upper Ayukt (Prashasan), Basti Mandal, Basti allowed the revision and cancelled the orders dated 30.12.1995 and 05.08.1997 passed by the SDM, Bansi.

4. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that one Salava son of Ali Raza was the owner of disputed plot no. 78/1 area 0.2.1 and plot no. 84 area 0.10.0 lying in Village Batwasia, Pargana Bansi Purab, District Siddhartha Nagar. After his death his wife was recorded as legal representative. She died issueless hence the land was vested in Gaon Sabha.

5. The petitioner was in continuous possession for the last 15 years over the plot in question and his name was recommended on 15.12.1995 to be substituted and mutated as Bhumidhar with non-transferable right. Tehsildar recommended his name which was approved by SDO, Bansi vide his approval dated 30.12.1995 which is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. Petitioner's name was recorded over the plot in question as bhumidhar with transferable right vide order of the SDO dated 06.04.1996 which is annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition. After that an objection was raised before the SDO, Bansi by respondent no. 5, Ram Milan, that he was in possession and the petitioner had got his name recorded by playing fraud. Petitioner filed objection against the application of the respondent no. 5 stating his case that petitioner was a member of scheduled castes and he is continuing his possession much prior to 03.06.1995 and his name was recorded after verification by the Revenue Authorities under Section 122-B(4)(f) of UPZA & LR Act.

6. The SDO rejected the application of respondent no. 5 holding that he himself had inspected the spot and had found the petitioner's possession and rejected the restoration application of respondent no. 5 vide his judgment and order dated 05.08.1997 which is annexed as Annexure-3.

7. Being aggrieved respondent no. 5 filed revision before respondent no. 2 who unjustifiably set aside the order dated 30.12.1995 and 05.08.1997 vide his judgment and order dated 22.09.1999 which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The revisional Court also directed the parties to get the title decided by a Competent Court which is wholly unjust and illegal.

8. Observation of the revisional Court that Gaon Sabha was not the party is wholly illegal and unjust and against the evidence on record as before the revisional Court Gaon Sabha was respondent no. 2. The SDO has rightly passed the order in favour of the petitioner who had himself inspected the spot and found the petitioner in possession.

9. Hence a prayer has been made to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to cancel the order/judgment of Additional Commissioner (Administration), Basti Mandal, Basti dated 22.09.1999 passed in Revision No. 42/106 and also to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the plot in question.

10. The petitioner has annexed following documents in this petition:

(i) Annexure no. 1, photocopy of the order dated 30.12.1995 passed by SDO, Bansi certified by oath commissioner.

(ii) Annexure no. 2, khatauni 1405 to 1410 fasli certified by oath commissioner.

(iii) Annexure no. 3, order dated 05.08.1997 passed by SDO, Bansi, certified by oath commissioner.

(iv) Annexure no. 4, order dated 22.09.1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Basti Mandal, Basti, certified by oath commissioner.

11. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 5 in which it is stated that the petitioner was never in possession over the