The court affirmed the Chief Revenue Officer's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, ruling that remanding for fresh adjudication was an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat and Mr.Chandra Bhan Yadav for respondent No.5.

2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was initiated by the petitioners' father before Collector for correction of final map in respect to plot No.258. Consolidator submitted his report on 20.08.2009. The objections were filed by petitioner's father as well as respondent no.5 against the report of the Consolidator accordingly, Consolidator submitted another report on 05.02.2011 to the effect that final map of plot No.258 is not according to renumbering map. On the basis of the report submitted by the Consolidator, respondent no.4/Chief Revenue Officer vide order dated 25.04.2012 confirmed the report of Consolidator dated 05.02.2011. Against the order dated 25.04.2012, respondent no.5 filed revision, which was registered as revision No.58/128/M/2012-13. Respondent No.6 has also filed a revision against the order dated 25.04.2012, which was registered as revision No.59/129/M of 2012-13. Respondent No.3/Commissioner, Azamgarh Division Azamgarh vide order dated 27.06.2013 allowed both the revisions setting aside the order dated 25.04.2012 and remitted the matter back before the Chief Revenue Officer to decide the proceeding afresh after obtaining fresh report. Against the order dated 27.06.2013 passed by respondent no.3 in the respective revisions, petitioner filed a revision before respondent No.2/Board of Revenue which was registered as revision No.2299/2012-2013, respondent no.2/Board of Revenue vide order dated 22.08.2013 dismissed the revision of the petitioners. Hence this writ petiton for the following relief:

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.08.2013 passed by respondent No.2 in Revision of the petitioners bearing No.2299/2-12-13 and order dated 27.06.2013 passed by respondent No3 in Revision No.58/128/M of 2012-132 of respondent No.5 and Revision No.59/129/M of 2012-13 of respondent No.6 (Annexure nos.13 and 11 respectively).

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities not to implement the order dated 27.06.2013 of the respondent No.3."

3. This Court vide order dated 16.01.2014 entertained the matter accordingly parties have exchanged their pleading.

4. Mr. Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, has been decided after considering the reports submitted by the Consolidator as well as objections filed to the report. He further submitted that in pursuance of the order of the Chief Revenue Officer in the proceeding under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, the map has been corrected accordingly. He submitted that in the revision filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, matter has been again remanded back before Chief Revenue Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act afresh, which is abuse of process of law. He next submitted that in the proceeding under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, first report submitted by the Consolidator was not approved accordingly and fresh report was submitted and on the basis of the subsequent report submitted by the consolidator, the proceeding has been decided in view of the provisions contained under Section 28 o