The court emphasized adherence to statutory procedures in land revenue disputes, ensuring both parties have the opportunity to present their objections.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Additional Collector as respondent No.7 in the writ petition during course of the day.

2. Heard Mr. Vidya Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, holding brief of Narendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 and Dr. Govind Kumar Saxena, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3.The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment/order dated 26.03.2018 and order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceeding initiated by the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 and their mother (since dead) under Section 28 of Land Revenue Act bearding case No. D 2015166700434 of 2015 Ashok Kumar and others vs. State, in regard to correction of map of plot No. 45 area 11 Biswa 8dhoor situate in village Unj Mugaraha, Post-Unj, Taluka Korh, Tehsil-Gyanpur, District-Bhadohi."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that proceeding initiated under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act at the instance of the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 cannot be entertained as the right has been claimed on the basis of fraudulent entry, which cannot be relied upon. He submitted that except the alleged entry made in the C.H. Form 23 (1) there is no other document in support of the alleged order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.02.2004. He further submitted that by earlier order of Additional Collector dated 23.09.2017, the report submitted by Naib Tehsildar/Tehsildar dated 21.07.2015 was found erroneous, as such the matter was remitted back before Tehsildar Gyanpur to submit fresh report according to confirmed map, C.H Form 23 (1), C.H. Form 41, C.H. Form 2-ka as well as in respect to the plot situated in the same sector. He further submitted that against the order of Additional Collector dated 23.09.2017 revision was filed by contesting respondents before the Commissioner, which was allowed in part vide order dated 26.03.2018 modifying the order of Additional Collector dated 23.09.2017 to the effect that in place of examining the entire plots of the Sector, authority shall measure the adjoining plot, C.H. Form 23 (1) C.H. Form 41 and C.H. Form 2 ka. He further submitted that petitioners challenged the order of Commissioner dated 26.03.2018 before the Board of Revenue that interference made by the Commissioner was not in accordance with law and the authority should proceed according to the order of Additional Collector or drop the proceeding as the basis of the claim of contesting respondent is alleged entry made in C.H. Form 23 (1) made on the basis of the order of Consolidation Officer, which is fraudulent as such the proceeding initiated under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, cannot be entertained.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 submitted that proceeding under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated in accordance with law on the basis of the entry of the plot No.45 in the revenue record. He further submitted that Additional Collector has found the earlier report submitted in the proceeding as erroneous as such directed the Tehsildar to submit fresh report in respect to the entire plots of the Sector as well as considering the other record accordingly order was challenged and the Commissioner has rightly modified the order, which requires no interference by this Court. He further submitted that proceeding under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act initiated by contesting respondent is still pending, as such the petitioners should appear in the pending proceeding which shall be decided in accordance with law rather writ petition before this Court. He further submitted that order of the Consolidation Officer has ri