JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent No. 4 is dispensed with.

3. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1-Additional Commissioner-IIIrd, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in Revision No. 541 of 2017, Computerized Case No.C20170800541 (Dharnidhar Pandey & others v. Radhyeshyam), filed under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") and the order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the opposite party No.2-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Payagpur, District-Bahraich, in the demarcation proceedings initiated under Section 41 of the Act of 1901.

4. It is stated that an application under Section 41 of the Act of 1901 was filed for demarcation by Radhey Shyam (opposite party No.4), which was allowed vide order dated 27.07.2017 by the opposite party No.2. This order was passed without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as such, the petitioners preferred a revision under Section 219 of the Act of 1901 and the revisional authority without considering the relevant aspects of the case particularly that the order dated 27.07.2017 was passed by the opposite party No.2 without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, declined to interfere in the order dated 27.07.2017 vide its order dated 02.01.2023, impugned herein.

5. Further submission is that it is settled principle that any order causing prejudice to the concerned even by the Administrative authorities ought to have been passed after providing proper opportunity of hearing. Thus, the indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.

6. Opposing the present petition for the relief sought, learned counsel for the State-Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey stated that present petition relates to demarcation proceedings, which is summary in nature, as such, this petition neither entertainable nor maintainable.

7. He further submitted that the revisional authority while declining to interfere in the order of the opposite party No.2 dated 27.07.2017 has provided the opportunity to the petitioners which is to the effect that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the demarcation, they may move fresh application for demarcation as such also no interference is required in the matter.

8. He also submitted that in the proceedings if initiated by the petitioners for demarcation, the opposite party No.2 would issue notice to the concerned persons including the opposite party No.4, as such, he would not be prejudiced and proper opportunity would be provided by the opposite party No.2 to the parties.

9. Considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including the impugned orders.

10. Admitted facts of the case are to the effect that for the purposes of demarcation the case was fixed on 27.07.2017 and on the same date the case was disposed of finally by the opposite party No.2, which was filed under Section 41 of the Act of 1901 by one Radhey Shyam and on the said date the petitioner was not present. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2017, a revision was filed in which the revisional authority passed the order dated 02.01.2023. Both these orders have been assailed by the petitioners in the present petition.

11. It would be apt here to refer the operative portion of the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1, which on reproduction reads as under:-

"nksuksa i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k }kjk izLrqr dh x;h fyf[kr cgl rFkk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; ,oa voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd voj U;k;ky; ds le{k jk/ks';ke ¼foi{kh½ dh vksj ls /kjuh/kj vkfn] tks bl U;k;ky; esa fuxjkuhdr