Review proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal; they must adhere strictly to legal standards, allowing for correction of apparent errors only, not retrials of decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Shri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shantanu, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, Shri H.K. Shukla, learned standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 the Gram Panchayats, concerned.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 14.05.2024, passed by the Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj in a Review registered as Case No. REV/3878/2023 ( Ram Deen vs. Pooran and others ), whereby and whereunder the Review has been allowed and the order dated 30.06.2023 passed in Second Appeal No. 1207 of 2021 under section 208 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as also the orders passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division Jhansi, dated 26.03.2021 in First Appeal under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pali District-Lalitpur in proceedings under section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act have been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide the proceedings afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned within three months.

3. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the respondent nos. 8 and 9 are proforma respondents and notices need not be issued to them and that the respondent no. 4 alone is the only contesting respondent. The writ petition raises legal issues and may be decided without calling for a counter affidavit.

4. The facts shorn of unnecessary details giving rise to the present proceedings are that the petitioner along with the Proforma respondents initiated proceedings under Section 229 -B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, registered as Case no. 242 of 1999-2000 seeking the declaration of their co-sharer rights to the extent of 1/2 share in Arazi No. 320/1M/0.372, Arazi No. 1023M/0.482 total area 0.852 Hectares situated in Village Pali and Arazi No. 335/0.101, 336/0.733, 337/1.749, 338/1.360, 337/0.101, 338/0.041 and 339/1/0.202 total seven plots area 4.899 Hectares situate in village Bhaunta. It was averred in the plaint of the aforesaid case that the aforesaid plots are joint family property belonging to common ancestor Ghasite. A pedigree has been depicted in para 4 of the writ petition to show the respective relationship of the parties. The suit under Section 229 -B was filed to declare 1/2 share in the plots. The proceedings were contested by Ram Deen the respondent no. 4 herein.The Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 09.10.2017 decreed the suit for 1/2 share in the plots in the aforesaid two villages. Aggrieved Ram Deen filed Appeal before the Commissioner, Jhansi Mandal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2021. Thereafter Ram Deen filed Second Appeal under Section 208 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before the Board of Revenue being Second Appeal No. 1207 of 2021, which too dismissed the Second Appeal upholding the judgment and orders of the learned Commissioner and Sub Divisional Officer. Thereafter the respondent no. 4 Ram Deen preferred a Review before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Case No. REV/3878/2023. The Review has been allowed by the impugned order dated 14.05.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has vehemently argued that the order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue reviewing its earlier order dismissing the Second Appeal and thereby upholding the orders of the Commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate is patently illegal and deserves to be set aside by this Court in exerci