JUDGMENT :

SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Gram Sabha concerned.

3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1/Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow in a revision filed under Section 333 Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short “Act of 1950”) registered as Case No. 1319 of 2016, Computerized Case No. C20161000001319 (Raza Hussain @ Raja Miyan vs. State of U.P.) whereby, the respondent No. 1 dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 08.06.2016, which is also in issue in this petition, passed by the respondent No. 2/Assistant Collector First, Additional Court, Sitapur in Case No. D2013106400123 (Raza Hussain @ Raja Miyan vs. State of U.P.) filed under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950.

4. By the order dated 08.06.2016, the respondent No. 2 dismissed the suit/case preferred by the petitioner for declaration of rights under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950.

5. The suit/case, indicated above, was filed in relation to Khata No. 123, Gata Nos. 87/3, 428, 193/1.250, 835/0.304, 891/0.170, 892/0.174, 893/0.174, 905Ka/0.158, 907/0.235, 908Ka/0.089, 910/0.113, 911/0.166, 913/0.166, 1002/0.231, 1003/0.275, 1004/0.214, 1008/0.138, 1009/0.304, 1012/0.267, 1053/0.300, 1056/0.235, 1057/0.255, 1059/0.352, 1063/0.300, 1148/0.275, 1208/0.138, 1209/0.437, 1210Ka/0.295, 1212/0.223, 1213/0.368, 1214/0.251, 1215/0.375, 1218/1.41, 1260/0.016, 1383/0.089, 1410/0.328, 1412/0.267, 1491/0.336, 1011/1497/0.206.

6. It would be apt to notice that it is an admitted case of the petitioner that the entry in revenue record (Khatauni) of the property in dispute of the Fasli Year 1360 (revenue record of 1950th year of the Common Era) indicates that the property is being managed by Custodian (Jere Intijam Custodian Sahab Bahadur Zila Sitapur).

7. The land, in issue in suit was recorded as ‘enemy property’ in the revenue records and taking note of the said entry in revenue records, the suit/case was dismissed on the ground that in view of Section 18-B of Enemy Property Act, 1968 (in short “Act of 1968”), the same is not maintainable, as would appear from the operative portion of the order dated 08.06.2016, which on reproduction reads as under:

8. The Revisional Authority/respondent No. 1 also affirmed the order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the respondent No. 2 vide order impugned dated 12.01.2023.

9. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present petition has been filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Assailing the impugned orders dated 08.06.2016 and 12.01.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner says that in the instant case, Section 18-B of the Act of 1968 is not attracted, as such, the suit/case, in issue, was maintainable and being so, the same ought to have been decided on merits and in dismissing the same vide order dated 08.06.2016 on the ground of maintainability taking note of Section 18-B of the Act of 1968, the Court/Authority concerned committed error in law and fact both and the order of affirmation passed by the Revisional Authority/respondent No. 1 dated 12.01.2023, without deciding the issue of maintainability of suit in its true spirit, is also unsustainable in the eye of law.

11. He further submitted that the entry made in revenue record appears to be without there being any order by the competent Authority in this regard. In fact, there is no order of any Authority under the Act of 1968 in compliance of which, entry was made in revenue records and before the Custodian, only an ‘order’ can be challenged, as such also, the order