Advocates:
['HARSH VIKRAM', '', 'DHARM VIR JAISWAL', 'C S C', '', 'ARUN KUMAR PANDEY']

AFR

Court No. - 19

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 368 of 2022

Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh And 6 Others

Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. And 8 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsh Vikram,Dharm Vir Jaiswal

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Pandey

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

1.

Heard Sri Harsh Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted

by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief

Standing Counsel and Sri Surya Bhan Singh and Sri Devesh

Vikram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State

respondents.

2.

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing

of the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the court of Additional

Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Moradabad in Case No. 04080

of 2018, Computerized Case No. T201813540104080 (Mahendra

Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.) in proceedings under Section

144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006¹ and the order dated

23.11.2021 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, U.P.

Allahabad in Case No. Rev/2396/2021/Moradabad, Computerized

Case No. AL20211354002396 (Mahendra Singh and others Vs.

Smt.Sharda Devi and others) in proceedings under Section 210 of

the Revenue Code. A further direction is sought to the private

respondent nos. 3 to 8 not to interfere in the peaceful possession

of the petitioners on land bearing Gata No. 251Aa situate at

Bhaypur Tehsil and District Moradabad.

1

Revenue Code

2

3.

The case as set up in the writ petition is that the land

bearing Gata No. 521 Ka area 3.2380 acre situate at village

Bhaypur Tehsil and District Moradabad was allotted to the

predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners; however due to

mistake of revenue authorities, their names were wrongly

recorded as class III tenure holder and treating them to be asami,

proceedings under Rule 176-A (2) of the U.P. Zamindari

Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952² were initiated and an

exparte order dated 07.03.2003 was passed directing their names

to be expunged from the revenue records. The land in question

was thereafter allotted to the respondent nos. 3 to 8. Upon an

application filed by the petitioners, the aforestated order was

recalled by an order dated 04.12.2003 and the proceedings were

thereafter dropped with the passing of an order dated 23.03.2006

under Rule 176-A (2). The order dated 23.03.2006 was put to

challenge by the subsequent allottees as also the State of U.P. by

filing a revision before the Additional Commissioner

(Administration), Moradabad and in terms of an order dated

31.03.2010, the revisions were allowed and the order dated

23.03.2006 was set aside. The earlier order dated 07.03.2003,

whereby the names of the predecessors-in-interest of the

petitioners had been expunged, was affirmed. The petitioners

thereafter preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue being

Revision No. 13 of 2010-2011, which is stated to be pending.

4.

It is further stated that the predecessors-in-interest of the

petitioners died in the meantime and the petitioners thereafter

instituted a suit for declaration under Section 144 of the Revenue

Code and also moved an application seeking temporary injunction

against the respondents under Section 146 of the Revenue Code.

The aforestated application seeking temporary injunction was

2

UPZA & LR Rules

3

rejected by the trial court by means of an order dated 23.09.2021,

which was subjected to challenge in a revision being Revision

No. 2396 of 2021 before the Board of Revenue, which was also

dismissed at the stage of admission. Aggrieved against the

aforestated order, the present writ petition has been filed.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has made his

submissions as under :-

5.1

The revisional court erred in dismissing the revision on the

ground of maintainability. The provision for grant of injunction

having been separately provided fo