Court No. - 3 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 364 of 2010 Petitioner :- Hari Shankar And Ors. Respondent :- Member Board Of Revenue Lko.And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Dinesh Kumar Misra,Ratna Gupta Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Shiv Prasann Singh Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
Heard Mr.Dinesh Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.S.P.Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.5 as well as learned
The petitioners are aggrieved with the orders dated 1,12.2009, 7.10.2002 and
22.7.1989, passed by the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3.
By means of order dated 1st of December, 2009, passed by the Board of
Revenue the petitioners’ revision under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act
has been dismissed on the ground that this revision has been preferred against
the order passed in revision itself, therefore, it is second revision, being so the
same is not maintainable.
So far as the orders passed by the other authorities of the court below are
concerned, upon perusal of record I find that under the proceeding under
Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act in the record some fictitious entries
were found have been made by one Shiv Raj Singh with ulterior motive. Be
as it may, ultimately it was corrected by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilgram,
district Harodi by means of order dated 22nd of July, 1989, against which the
petitioners preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner
(Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which has also been rejected. It is a
settled view of this court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court that against
the order passed in the summary proceeding the writ petition is not
maintainable. The parties may choose to file a regular suit for establishing
their title because the purpose of entry made in the revenue record is just for
determination of the fiscal matter, which does not determine the title between
Indisputedly the proceeding held under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue
Act is a summary proceeding, therefore, I am of the view that against the
orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Additional
Commissioner neither the revision was maintainable before the Board of
Revenue nor the writ petition is maintainable before this court. Therefore, I
hereby dismiss the writ petition.