The court established that residents can challenge land allotments as 'persons aggrieved' under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, emphasizing the importance of public interest in such disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anubhav Sinha and Sri Ayub Khan, learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri Somesh Khare along with Sri S. K. Kumar and Sri Prem Chand Saroj, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, learned Standing Counsel representing the State Respondents and Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3, the Land Management Committee concerned.

2. The writ petition has been filed questioning the orders dated 03.11.2000 and 08.05.2003 (Annexure Nos. 3 & 5) to the writ petition respectively passed by the Board of Revenue, U. P. at Allahabad in Revision No. 64(2) of 1997-98 under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act whereby and whereunder allowing the Revision vide order dated 03.11.2000 and rejecting the recall application registered as Case No. 49 of 2001-02 as not maintainable vide order dated 08.05.2003.

3. The dispute relates to the allotment of land by the Land Management Committee of Village Gulawati, Pargana Dankaur, District Bulandshahar, now Gautam Buddh Nagar, Respondent No. 3 in favour of 164 persons of the Village vide allotment order dated 15.12.1989. The allotment is stated to have been approved by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Respondent No. 2 on 10.05.1990.

4. The writ petitioners, who are the villagers of the village concerned aggrieved by the allotment of the land in favour of the Respondent No. 4 to 164 along with other aggrieved persons filed a complaint on 01.06.1990 which was registered as Case No. 72 of 1991 before the Additional Collector, Bulandshahar seeking cancellation of the said allotment on the ground that the allotments were irregular, not in accordance with the rules and had been made in favour of the ineligible persons. The complaint case registered as Case No. 72 of 1991 was allowed vide order dated 04.06.1994 passed by the Additional Collector, Bulandshahar.

5. Against the order dated 04.06.1994, the Respondent No. 4 to 150 preferred a Revision before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut registered as Revision No. 88 of 1994-95 ( Balvir Vs. Satvir and others ) which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.06.1998, holding that the allotment had been made against the provisions of Rule 173 (Kha), 174 and 175 of the UPZA & LR Rules 1952. Aggrieved by the rejection of their Revision vide order dated 25.06.1998 the Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 preferred a Second Revision before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Revision No. 64(2) of 1997-98 ( Bali Ram and others Vs. Satyabir and others ). The Board of Revenue in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without considering the aspect that a second Revision by the same persons was not maintainable, proceeded to entertain the second Revision and allowed the same vide order dated 03.11.2000. The Recall Application filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 03.11.2000 was also rejected by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 19.01.2001. The Review Application dated 22.08.2002 registered as Case No. 49 of 2001-02 was also rejected vide order dated 08.05.2003.

6. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Board of Revenue at Allahabad committed manifest illegality in passing the impugned orders. He submits that :-

(i) The Board of Revenue erred in law in entertaining the Second Revision in exercise of powers under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950 in view of