The Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide revisions on merit under the U.P. Land Revenue Act post-amendment, without needing to refer to the Board of Revenue.

ORDER :

(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.8/2024.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. No ground for impleadment is made out.

3. The Application is rejected.

Order on Writ Petition.

1. Heard Mr. R.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner’s father- Jangi Yadav was granted lease of plot nos. 228, 117, 119, 120, 121 and 122. On the basis of the lease executed in favour of the petitioner’s father, his name was accordingly recorded in the revenue records in respect to plot no.228 only but the name of the petitioner’s father was not recorded over the remaining plots, accordingly, in the proceeding under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, an order was passed by the revenue authority for recording the name of the petitioner’s father but later on the order was recalled. The village in question was brought under consolidation operation by way of notification issued under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. C.H. Act”) on 27.6.1981. Against the basic year entry, an objection under Section 9(A)2 of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by the petitioner’s father in respect to plot in question. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.9.1986, directed to record the name of the petitioner’s father- Jangi Yadav over the plot in question on the basis of lease executed in his favour. In para no. 8 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that no appeal and revision has been filed by gram panchayat/land management committee against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 25.9.1986. In C.H. Form No.45, name of the petitioner’s father was recorded over the plot in question. Petitioner’s father expired in the year 1990 and after the death of the petitioner’s father, petitioner and his brothers have been recorded over the plot in question. An application dated 26.6.1997 was filed by one Sahabdin, a resident of village Sarai Haji before the District Magistrate/Deputy District Director of Consolidation with the prayer that the record of Case No.45, under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act be summoned and the entry made in favour of the petitioner’s father may be cancelled. The Chief Revenue Officer vide order dated 24.7.1997 directed to record the disputed plot in the name of the Gram Sabha. The petitioner challenged the order dated 24.7.1997 before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.34748 of 1997 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.10.1997 on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner challenged the order dated 24.7.1997 by way of revision before the Commissioner on 3.11.1997. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed by the Addl. Commissioner vide order dated 12.5.1998, setting aside the order dated 24.7.1997 on the ground that the Consolidation Officer in the title proceeding has passed the order to record the name of the petitioner’s father over the plot in question and the order has attained finality. Against the order dated 12.5.1998, Sahabdin filed a revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide order dated 17.8.1998 has set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 12.5.1998, on the ground that in view of the provisions contained under the Act, the order passed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained as the Commissioner cannot allow the revision rather he can make reference to the Board of Revenue for allowing or dismissing the revision. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

“1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashin