BEFORE THE HON’BLE BOARD OF REVENUE U.P.

AT
ALLAHABAD.
REVISION NO. OF 2020-21
(Under Section 219 or U.P. Land Revenue Act)
(District : Ghaziabad)

1. Darshan Pal
2. Krishna Pal
3. Arvind kumar
4. Atul kumar
5. Dipak
All resident or village- Mehrauli, Pargana Dasana, TahsiI-
Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad.
_______Revisiorusts.

Versus

1. State of Uttar Pradesh through its Collector, Ghaziabad.

2. Land Management Committee,
Village-Mahrauli, through its Pradhan, Maharaull.
Pargana Dasana. Tahsil-Ghaziabad, Distict Ghaziabad.
3. Upendra Kumar
Residence C-22, Second Floor R.D.C.,
Raj Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
4. Dharm Pal S/o Raghubir
R/o Village. Mahrauli, Pargana Dasana. Tahsil-
Ghaziabad, Distract Ghaziabad,

_______Opposite party

The revisionist abovenamed prefers this revision against

the order dated 27 01 2020 passed by Additional

Commissioner,Meerut region, Meerut in Revision

in

by this that Court

be pleased to allow this revj%ion, setting-aside the

dated 27.01.2020 panged by the Court

with

cont throughout and pass such Other and further

order which thin Hon•bJe Court may deem fit and

proper under the facts and circumstances Of the

case.

Thi% revisionist objection agamst the imp-

agned order passed by the Court below on the

followtng amongst other

GROUNDS

I) Because, the revisional Court erred in law before

passing and set aside the order dated 1.02.2009

passed by Sub Divisional/Assistant Collector,
Ghaziabad under section 33/39 L.R. Act m quite

illegal and contrao• to provision of the Land

Revenue Act.
 2) Because, the revisional Court Ignored this fact that

the land dispute In question already settled in

favour of the revisionist by the order dated 1,

1964 passed by Parganadhikan Ghanabad.

Because. the revisional Court set-aside the order dated I

-02.2009 passed by the Sub

Maestrate. in which clearlv held that

against the order dated 15.1 i Li964 no or
re•hsaon had filed by the opposte parties vide
order dated 15. i , 1964 trcame final

Because. the Court has tvmngly misconstrued

the evidence that between the panes.
matter alreadv settle much earlier and trus very

ground revision is barred by under section (I ) of the

Civil Procedure Code.

5) Because, the title and dispute has not been

decided under Section 33/39 of L. R- Act and
Revisional
Court committed error before set aside the order
dated 11.02 2009 and 14.5.15 passed by

subDivisional Maestrate, Ghaziabad-

6) Because, there IS not Rasta over the land In

dispute which is possession of the revisiotust
 of the plot Nov 270? area O. 139 hectare and
name of the reustotust bew,g recorded in
revenue entnes of the Fash year 359 to until
now, but the RevtsronaJ Court overlooked
aforesaxd facts and finding before pass.'ng
order dated 27 0 p, 2020
and contrary to the provision of the Land Revenue
Act.

7) Because, the proceeding the 33/ 39 or the Land

Revenue Act, is summary proceeding in thus
proceedmq title dispute could not be decided

8) Because, the revisional Court committed patent

error in rejecung the order dated 11.02.2009, passed
by Sub-DivisionaI/Assistant Collector
Ghaziabad under Section 33/39 L.R- Act-

9) Because, the yudgnent and order passed by the

Revisional Court is illegal, contrary to the
statutory provision of the I„R. Act and
unsustainable,

10) Because, the Revisional Court over sighted and

ignored relevant facts that land in dispute in
question has already been settled in favour Of the
 revisionist by thc judgrnent and order da:cd
15.11.1961 passed by the Pargana Adhikan
Ghaziabad

l) Because. no reusion or appeal filed by the opposite parties

against the judgrnent and order dated

15. I . 1964 became final

Court
mtsconnrrued the evidence demonstrated by the
parties has already been settled much earlier, on this
very ground the revision is barred under section I I
Of the Civil Procedure Code

Because, the titled dispute has not been enctdcd

under section 33/39 of L.R. Act and rewstonal
Court comrrutted error to set aside the order dated
I J.02.2009 and 14.5.2015 passed by the Sub
Divisional Maglstrate€ Ghaziabad

14) Because, there is no 'Rasta' over the luld tn dispute,

which is in possession of the revisionist and plot

NO. 270/1 area 0.139 hectare recorded in revenue
record with name of the reviBionist in Fash year
1359 to uptil now, the revistona_l Court over
looked the aforesaid facts and finding, the order
dated 27.01.2020 is illegal, contrary to the statutory
provisions of the L.R. Act liable to be set-aside.
 15) Because, the proceeding under section 33/39 L.P.
Act is "i •mm nn ne proceeding and title dispute
could not bc decided the order dated 27,01.2020
passed by the revisional Court is absolutely
illegal and unsustainable,
16) Because. the U.p. Revenue Cod-2006 is also
applicable in the case Of the revisionist and Section
214 Of Revenue Code clearly provide that Code
Civil Procedure is applicable The revision filed the
State Government is barred under Section (I l) Of the
Civil Procedure Code, between parties/ revi810nigts,
which has been decided such earlier in the year 1964

Dated • 02.2020

(AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH)

Advocate
Counsel for the retasionigts
Chamber No. 79. High Court,
Allahabad
Mob. No. 9451051025