Dilip Kumar and Others vs Board of Revenue and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

In proceedings u/s 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for mutation an order came to be passed by the Tahsildar on 14.3.2011 whereby the restoration application filed by the Petitioner was rejected and the order dated 21.10.1989 was maintained.

Aggrieved the Petitioner filed a revision before the Member of the Board of Revenue who admitted the revision and passed an interim order on 1.4.2011. Against the said interim order the opposite parties went up in a revision before the Board of Revenue at Lucknow and the operation of the interim order as well as the order dated 10.5.2011 were stayed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the same learned Member of the Board of Revenue Sanjai Bhus Reddy has himself ruled that No. revision would lie against an interim order in a decision reported in 2011 (3) AWC Para 3.66 yet the same Member has violated his own judgment and passed an interim order.

Prima facie the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners appears to be correct.

Until further orders of this Court, all further proceedings before the Board of Revenue shall remain stayed and there shall be No. induction of third party rights during the pendency of the writ petition.

A certified copy of this order shall be placed on record in the revision pending before the Board of Revenue

Issue notice to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 calling upon them to file a response to this petition.

The matter shall be listed on 12.10.2011.

A copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner today on payment of usual charges.