Summary proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot expunge long-standing land entries; proper judicial recourse is required for ownership disputes.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Saurabh Basu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhishek Kumar Chaubey and Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for for the respondent No.7 and Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plot No.353/2, 354, 355/2, 398/2, 399/2, 400/2 situated in village Sadullapur @ Modelpur, Tehsil-Jewar, District Gautambudhpur were recorded in the name of petitioners' father Shiv Dayal @ Shiv Lal in 1347 Fasli according to petitioners but according to State as well as private respondent No.7 it was recorded in the name of Zamindar Chaudhary Rajendra Singh and the same was given on lease to father of petitioner no.1 Shiv Dayal @ Shiv Lal had two sons Ramveer & Shahveer. Petitioner No.2 purchased the share of Shahveer accordingly petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are contesting the proceedings. Consolidation proceeding intervened in the village by way of notification issued under section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on 24.2.1966 and village was de-notified by way of notification issued under section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on 23.12.1967. In proceeding under section 122B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act,1950 an order for ejectment & damages was passed on 31.1.1983 against petitioner No.1 in respect to plot No.215 area 15 Biswa which was affirmed in appeal. Land acquisition proceedings was initiated vide notification dated 19.3.1947 for construction of Jewar Khurja Highway but in respect to petitioner's plot, the requisition proceeding as provided under Section 35 & 36 of Land Acquisition Act took place and after completion of construction of Jewar-Khurja Highway, land of different tenure holders were returned back to the respective tenure holders accordingly the name of respective tenure holders were recorded but in certain cases the names were not recorded hence on the basis of the report of the authorities, District Magistrate vide order dated 26.5.1988 directed to record the name of tenure holders in respect to plot No- 241 (New No.86M) area 0-0-10., plot No246 (New No-82M), 250 (New No-82M), plor No.305 ( New No.186M) area 0-15-0, plot No.314 ( New No.186 M) area 0- 5-0, Plot No- 399 (New No- 215M) area 0-15-0 & Plot No312 (New No-186M) area 0-8-0 Total area 2-15-10. Respondent No.7 claims to be owner of plot No.221 & 222. A Civil Suit No.6 of 2016 for decree of Injunction impleading petitioners as defendants in respect to her plot No.221 is pending before Civil Court. Respondent No. 7 filed an application under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 to correct the entry of plot No.215 by recording the same as road in the revenue record. The aforementioned application filed by respondent No.7 was registered as Case No.4/2016, under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. A report dated 18.1.2016 was submitted in the aforementioned proceeding. Respondent No.5, Sub Divisional Magistrate heard the aforementioned proceeding under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act vide order dated 8.7.2016 rejected the application under section 33/39 filed by respondent No.7 on the ground that plot in dispute is Bhumidhari plot of the tenure holder as such the entry cannot be expunged in the summary proceeding rather parties should avail remedy before regular court. Against the order dated 8.7.2016, respondent no.7 filed revision under section 219 of the UP. Land Revenue Act before the Commissioner. The aforementioned revision was registered as revision No.57 of 2015-16 and the same was heard by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. Respondent No.3/Additional Commissioner vide order dated 23.9.2016 allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 8.7.2016 and expunged the entry in respect to plot no.215. Petitioner challenged the order dated 23.9.2016 before the Board of Revenue under section 219 of