Court No. - 52

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3068 of 2022

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar And 6 Others

Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. And 7 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Veer Bhagat Singh Kushwaha

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Sandeep

Maniji Bakhshi

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Mr. Veer Bhagat Singh Kushwaha, Counsel for the

petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and

2, Mr. Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi Counsel for respondent Nos.3

and 5 and Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra, Counsel for respondent No.4.

Notice to respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 is dispensed with as they

are stated to be proforma respondents.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being heard

and disposed of finally.

Brief facts of the case are that plot No.6400/1 area 3.428

hectare was recorded in the name of the tenure holders as

mentioned in the Khatauni. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 purchased

0.021 hectare and respondent No.5 purchased 0.021 hectare

area of plot in question by giving wrong boundary vide sale

deed dated 24.06.2019 and initiated proceeding for demarcation

under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, petitioners

filed objections in the aforementioned proceedings under

Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. One Kadir Khan

filed case for demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue

Code, 2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2019.

Case under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by

contesting respondent Nos.3 and 5 was dismissed vide order

dated 27.02.2021. Against the order dated 27.02.2021,

respondent No.3 filed appeal under section 207 of the U.P.

Revenue Code, 2006 before the Commissioner and without any

notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, appeal filed

by the respondent No.3 has been allowed and matter was

remitted back before the trial court to decide the case under

Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 afresh. Against the

order of the Additional Commissioner petitioners filed recall

application on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was

afforded to the petitioners and impugned order has been passed,

but the Additional Commissioner dismissed the recall

application filed by the petitioners accordingly, petitioners filed

revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,

which was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide order dated

20.09.2022, hence this writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that appeal filed by the

respondent No.3 against the order of trial court has been

allowed without giving opportunity of hearing of the

petitioners. He further submitted that the recall application and

the revision was filed before the courts below taking specific

ground that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners, the appeal has been allowed and the order of the

trial court has been set aside, which is against the law. He

further submitted that orders passed by the Additional

Commissioner and the Board of Revenue be set aside and

matter be sent back to decide the matter afresh after giving

opportunity of hearing.

On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents submitted that

the appellate order has been passed in the interest of justice and

by the appellate order mater has been remanded back before the

trial court to decide the case under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue

Code, 2006 filed by contesting respondents afresh, as such

petitioners have full opportunity to appear before the court of

first instance and raise whatever objections, he wants against

the application under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the writ

petition arising out of summary proceeding, as such no

interference is required in the matter.

I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

There is no dispute about the fact that in appeal petitioners were

impleaded as oppo