JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Mohan Singh, Advocate, who has received notice on behalf of the respondent No. 5/Land Management Committee.

2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order dated 22.02.1993 passed by the Pargana Adhikari, Tiloi, District- Raebareli, the land/property, in issue, was recorded in the name of State and thereafter the part of land, in issue, was allotted to the father of the petitioners namely Naseer and after his death, the name(s) of the petitioner(s) were recorded in the revenue records.

3. Challenging the order dated 22.02.1993, a revision registered as Case No. 182/1992-1993, Computerized Case No. C1993100000120 (Dayaram v. State) under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") was filed by the respondent No. 6 (Sayaram s/o Sewa) and in the revision, neither Naseer (father of the petitioners) was imp-leaded nor the petitioners were imp-leaded and by the impugned order dated 13.05.2022, the revision has been allowed and the impugned order is affecting the rights of the petitioners as the revenue record of part of land, in issue, bears the name(s) of the petitioners. As such, the present petition challenging the order dated 13.05.2022 has been preferred and in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.

4. Learned State counsel apposing the present petition has stated that the petitioners are having remedy of revision under Section 219 of the Act of 1901 and as such, the present petition is not maintainable.

5. He also stated that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2022 then they can also prefer an application for recall of the order dated 13.05.2022.

6. On the aforesaid aspect of the case, reference can be made to the following judgments.

7. In the judgment dated 01.05.2012 passed by this Court in WRIT- C No. 20020 of 2012 [Bandhu Ram And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others], reported in 2012 SCC Online All 4273 : (2012) 116 RD 629, wherein, this Court while considering the issue related to second revision, observed as under:-

"For appreciating the controversy in hand, it would be appropriate to go through the language used in Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901. For appreciation, the aforesaid section is quoted below.

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 Road Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them.

From going through the language used in Sub-section 2 of Section 219 it transpires that if an application under this section has been moved by any person before 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 en