Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 18455 of 2013

Petitioner :- Abubakar

Respondent :- Momin Girls High School And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P. Shastri,Prashant Kumar

Tripathi,Rajeev Misra,Yogesh Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Dwivedi,Satish

Chandra Mishra

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel, holding

brief of Sri Yogesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri P. K. Dwivedi and Sri Siddharth Shankar, learned

counsel, holding brief of Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, learned

counsel for respondent no.1, learned Standing Counsel

represents respondent no.2 and perused the record.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging

the order dated 14.03.2013 passed by Board of Revenue in

Revision No.32 of 2013.

3. Question for consideration in the present matter lies in a very

narrow compass as to whether order passed by Additional

Commissioner (Administration) in revision under section 333

of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act,

1950 (in brevity UPZA & LR Act) filed against the order passed

in a proceeding under section 33/39 of Uttar Pradesh Land

Revenue Act (in brevity UPLR Act), is justified in the eye of

law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a

simple difference of nomenclature, wherein section 333 of

UPZA & LR Act has been mentioned in place of section 219 of

UPLR Act in the caption of revision filed against an order

passed in a proceeding under section 33/39 of UPLR Act. It is

further submitted that in both the aforesaid sections authority is

common, therefore, it will not make any difference with respect

to the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the contesting respondent, in

defending the order dated 14.03.2013 passed by Board of

Revenue, contended that UPZA & LR Act is an special

enactment, therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner under

section 333 of UPZA & LR Act is not maintainable, against the

order passed under section 33/39 of UPLR Act. It is further

submitted that there is no illegality, perversity and manifest

error in the order impugned passed by Board of Revenue.

Therefore, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. On the behest of respondent no.1 an application under section

33/39 of UPLR Act has been moved for correction of area 0.336

Kadi of plot no.1080/1, to be recorded in the name of school.

Aforesaid application was allowed, vide order dated 19.04.1980

(Annexure No.3).

8. Feeling aggrieved, present petitioner has filed revision before

Additional Commissioner (Administration). In the caption of

memo of revision, notation of the legal provision (section)

under which revision was filed, inadvertently, transcribed as

section 333 of UPZA & LR Act. Treating the aforesaid revision

competent, learned Additional Commissioner (Administration)

has allowed the revision, vide order dated 26.02.2016

(Annexure No.5) and set-aside the order passed by the S.D.O.

9. Having been aggrieved with the order passed by the

Additional Commissioner (Administration) dated 26.02.2016,

respondent no.1 has preferred revision before Board of

Revenue, who has reversed the order passed by Additional

Commissioner (Administration) for want of jurisdiction, citing

the reason that the revision under section 333 of UPZA & LR

Act is not maintainable against an order passed in a proceeding

under section 33/39 of UPLR Act.

10. In my opinion there is a simple difference of nomenclature

in mentioning the notation of section in the caption of memo of

revision, wherein provision under section 333 of UPZA & LR

Act has inadvertently been transcribed in place of section 219

of UPLR Act. It is apposite to mentioned that under both the

aforesaid sections authority is one and