JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party no.4 is dispensed with.

3. By means of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.11.2020 passed in Revision Case No.1542 of 2020/Rai Bareli, Computerized Case No.R20201058001542 (Jagdish Prasad vs. Shiv Pyari) filed under Section 219, U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as ' Act of 1901').

4. The brief facts of the case to that effect are that the petitioner preferred an application for amendment before opposite party no.3, Nayab Tehsildar, Dalmau, District-Rai Bareli in a mutation case which was filed based upon the Will dated 02.04.1991 under Section 34 of Act of 1901 registered as Case No.49/SS/57158/72/102/2010 (Jagdish Prasad vs. Jhoori[died]). The said application for amendment, whereby, the amendment was sought to incorporate Gata No.265 Area 0.232 hectare, was rejected vide order dated 20.02.2020.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2020, the petitioner preferred a Revision under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act, 1901, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.11.2020 being not maintainable. The Revisional Court observed that the order under Revision is interlocutory in nature and as such, the same is not maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the Revisional Authority/Opposite party no.2-Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow has erred in exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. Further, the order rejecting the application seeking amendment in the plaint/application for mutation would be covered under the expression 'case decided' and being so, taking note of the same and also the language couched under Section 219 of Act of 1901, the revision was maintainable and ought to have been decided on the merits and not on the issue of maintainability. He further submitted that the Gata No.265 Area 0.232 hectare indicated in the application for amendment in the plaint ought to have been allowed as it would avoid the multiplicity of proceedings and would not change the nature of the case, as such, also the Revisional Authority should exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by virtue of Section 219 of Act of 1901.

7. Learned Standing counsel, has assisted this Court on the issue involved in the present petition.

8. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. In order to decide the issue involved in the present petition this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Section 219 of Act of 1901, which reads as under:-

"219. Revision. -(1) The Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, may call for the record of any case decided or proceeding held by any revenue Court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding held and if such subordinate revenue Court appears to have -

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it bylaw, or

(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,

The Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, pass such order in the case as he thinks fit.

(2) If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board, or to the Commissioner, or to the Additional Commissioner, or the Collector or to the Record Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them."

10. In the case of Raja Ram and Ors. vs Additional Commissioner Faizabad Division Faizabad & Others rendered in Writ Petition No.3301 (M/S)