A private respondent cannot maintain a revision against the Deputy Director's order before the Additional Director of Land Records while a comprehensive civil suit is pending regarding the same subject matter.

ORAL ORDER

These batches of writ petitions are taken together, as common issues are involved and this batch of petitions all pertain to the same survey numbers.

2. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by filing of revision petition by the private respondent before respondent No.2 – Additional Director of Land Records assailing the order passed by respondent No.4 – Deputy Director of Land Records.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the petitions, learned counsel appearing for private respondent and learned AGA for the State.

4. The primary contention raised in this batch of petitions is that a private respondent cannot maintain a revision assailing the order of the Deputy Director of Land Records before respondent No.2 – Additional Director of Land Records. Citing a Notification dated 31.05.2021, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have succeeded in demonstrating that the order of respondent No.4 – Deputy Director of Land Records can be questioned and a Revision is maintainable before the Regional Director of Land Records and not before respondent No.2 - Additional Director of Land Records.

5. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that in view of filing of a comprehensive suit by the private respondent, the proceedings before the Quasi Judicial Authorities are to be either deferred or the Authorities lack jurisdiction to examine validity of the phodi proceedings conducted by respondent No.4 – Deputy Director of Land Records. Learned counsel appearing of the petitioners referring to the prayer sought in the comprehensive suit filed by the private respondent would point out that the phodi and durasti is strictly adhering with the title documents obtained by the petitioners at an undisputed point of time. Therefore, he would contend that no purpose will be served by relegating respondent No.6 to avail remedy of appeal before the Regional Director of Land Records.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for private respondent has vehemently argued and tried to persuade this Court that sale deeds obtained by the petitioners are in reference to block numbers, while the petitioners are asserting right and title over 100 acres 32 guntas in Sy. No.4. Therefore, he would point out that private respondent right to assail the order passed by respondent No.4 – Deputy Director of Land Records is maintainable dehors filing of comprehensive suit in O.S.No.876/2023 before the competent Civil Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel on record, this Court is not inclined to accede to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for private respondent.

8. Before I delve into the maintainability of the proceedings either before respondent No.2 – Additional Director of Land Records or before the Regional Director of Land Records, this Court deems it fit to take cognizance of the prayer sought in the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.876/2023. The said prayer would clinch the entire controversy as of now. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out prayer sought in O.S.No.876/2023 and the same is furnished in the paper book submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.2959/2024.

9. Though learned counsel appearing for private respondent did make a feeble attempt indicating that these documents are not part of record, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention. The suit is filed by the private respondent and the private respondent cannot dispute th