JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard.

2. By means of present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, in Revision No. 2285 of 2015, Computerized Case No.C- 201504002285 (Jaibul Nisha & Others v. Krishna Gopal & Others) filed under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901").

3. It is stated that proceedings for correction of map were initiated under Section 28 of the Act of 1901, which was registered as Case No.473/315/146/90/56 (14-15), Computerized Case No. D-200904120073 (Krishna Gopal v. Jaibulnisha & Others). The respondent No.3/Collector/District Magistrate, Barabanki vide its order dated 20.05.2015 decided this case on the basis of the report of the Revenue Official dated 30.06.2014.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2015, respondent No.4 filed a revision under Section 219 of the Act of 1901, registered as Revision No. 2285 of 2015, Computerized Case No.C-201504002285 (Jaibul Nisha & Others v. Krishna Gopal & Others). This revision was allowed vide impugned order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.1- Collector, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya.

5. While assailing the order dated 04.01.2023, impugned herein, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Revisional Authority while interfering in the order of the respondent No.3/Collector/District Magistrate, Barabanki failed to appreciate the report 30.06.2014, which was the basis of the order dated 20.05.2015, as such, the order of the Revisional Authority is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be interfered by this Court and being so, indulgence of this Court is required.

6. Opposing the present petition, learned counsel for the State-Sri Vishal Sonkar and Sri Govind Kumar Chaurasiya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohan Singh, Advocate have stated that present petition relates to the proceedings initiated under Section 28 of the Act of 1901, which are summary in nature and the same were decided vide order dated 20.05.2015 and thereafter, a revision was filed, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 04.01.2023. This order is order of remand, as such, petitioner has full opportunity to place relevant pleas before the authority concerned. In these circumstances, the order of remand dated 04.01.2023 is not liable to be interfered by this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the side opposite have also stated that the order of remand is justified as the Revisional Authority in its order dated 04.01.2023 has specifically observed that the revisionists before the respondent No.2 raised their objections but the said objections were not considered as required under the law. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the objection were considered by the respondent No.3- Collector/District Magistrate, Barabanki while passing the order dated 20.05.2015 and this aspects of the case has been ignored by the Revisional Authority i.e. respondent No.1-Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya while passing the order dated 04.01.2023. As such, the interference of this Court is required in the matter.

9. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that to decide the controversy it would be apt to refer the order dated 20.05.2015 passed by the respondent No.3-Collector/District Magistrate, Barabanki particularly operative portion of the same, which on reproduction reads as under:-

"mHk;i{kksa mifLFkrA mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk lfgr ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk jktLo ds rdksZa dks lfoLrkj lquk x;kA i=koyh