JUDGMENT V. Kumar, Chairman. - The reference No. 268 of 1970-71 district Faizabad in re: Deo Narain v. Jagdamba Prasad has been made by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad on January 19, 1971 in correction of papers case recommending that the revision No. 128/1495 be allowed and the order of the trial court ordering to record the name of Jagdamba Prasad in Col. IX be set aside. 2. Revision No. 329 of 1974-75, Faizabad has been filed by Jagdamba Prasad under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in correction of papers case against the order of the Additional Commissioner Faizabad dated January 19, 1971 dismissing revision No. 1303 of Jagdamba Prasad. 3. Since a common point of law is involved in these cases and the parties are same I am disposing off these two cases by a common order. The parties have no objection to it. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Deo Narain moved an application for correction of papers on the grounds that plots Nos. 312 and 248 are in his possession from 1364F. Jagdamba Prasad and others have no concern with them and their names have fictitiously been entered in village records. Deo Narain further alleged that the name of Jagdamba Prasad has wrongly been mutated as legal heir of Smt. Lakhraji. Jagdamba Prasad and others objected on the grounds that they are in possession since long. They have perfected Sirdari rights. After considering the evidence of the parties the trial court ordered that the name of Jagdamba Prasad be expunged as Asami from the plot in dispute and be recorded as occupant in remarks col. of the Khasra. Being aggrieved by this order of the trial court Deo Narain and Jagdamba Prasad both went in revision before the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad who rejected the revision of Jagdamba Prasad on January 19, 1971 and recommended the revision of Deo Narain to the Board for setting aside the order of the trial court ordering to record the name of Jagdamba Prasad in Col. IX of the Khasra. Jagdamba Prasad has also filed a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue against the order of the Additional Commissioner Faizabad dismissing his revision. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 6. IX of the Khasra. Jagdamba Prasad has also filed a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue against the order of the Additional Commissioner Faizabad dismissing his revision. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 6. The learned counsel for Deo Narain raised a preliminary objection that Jagdamba Prasad has preferred the revision after a delay of more than about 4 years and 3 months on August 6, 1975 against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad dated January 19, 1971. The delay is inordinate and the same has not been explained properly. Jagdamba Prasad was fully award about the decision of his revision as he was duly represented by the Counsel and arguments were advanced before the Additional Commissioner on his behalf and the judgment was pronounced in his presence. The present revision is an after-thought of Jagdamba Prasad, because at the time of hearing of the reference relating to the revision of Deo Narain he took time to show the case law on the points involved in this case. The Board was not justified in condoning the delay and admitting the revision. Deo Narain should have been afforded an opportunity for contesting the admission and application for condonation of delay. The order of the Board dated August 6, 1975 needs to be set aside. 7. In reply the learned counsel for Jagdamba Prasad urged that both the revisions of Deo Narain and Jagdamba Prasad were heard and disposed of by a single common order dated January 19, 1971 passed by the Additional Commissioner. By this order the revision of Jagdamba Prasad was rejected and the revision of Deo Narain was recommended to the Board. Jagdamba Prasad received a notice from the Board for depositing the process fee in compliance of which he deposited the same. Jagdamba Prasad was expecting that the entire matter relating to the correction of entry in question would be looked into by the Board exercising the wide revisional powers under the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The Board was justified in admitting the revision and condoning the delay in filing the revision. The learned counsel for Jagdamba Prasad further urged that the whole case was already before the Board in the form of a reference made by the Additional Commissioner and there was no need of any revision. 8. The Board was justified in admitting the revision and condoning the delay in filing the revision. The learned counsel for Jagdamba Prasad further urged that the whole case was already before the Board in the form of a reference made by the Additional Commissioner and there was no need of any revision. 8. I have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the parties and I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for Jagdamba Prasad. Both the revisions of Deo Narain and Jagdamba Prasad were heard and disposed off by a single common order dated January 19, 1971. By this order the Additional Commissioner rejected the revision of Jagdamba Prasad and referred the revision of Deo Narain to the Board with his recommendation. In this reference the entire matter is before the Board. The Board was, therefore, justified in admitting the revision of the applicant Jagdamba Prasad and condoning the delay in filing it. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Board dated August 6, 1975. 9. On merits of the case the learned counsel for Deo Narain urged that Smt. Lakhraji was Asami of Mahadeo Singh, who died heirless and as such the entry in the name of Jagdamba Prasad was incorrect and should not be allowed. There is no evidence on record about the possession of Jagdamba Prasad. The trial court was not justified in passing orders that the name of Jagdamba Prasad be recorded in Col. IX of the Khasra. The learned Additional Commissioner has rightly recommended for setting aside this order of the trial court. 10. In reply the learned counsel for Jagdamba Prasad urged that the correction case instituted by Deo Narain was not maintainable under Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The long standing entries in the name of Jagdamba Prasad cannot be corrected in these summary proceedings of correction under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The entries in the name of Jagdamba Prasad was based on the order of the S.K. dated July 4, 1967 under Section 33-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against which no review or revision was filed. The validity of this order cannot be challenged or determined in a correction of papers case. 11. The entries in the name of Jagdamba Prasad was based on the order of the S.K. dated July 4, 1967 under Section 33-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against which no review or revision was filed. The validity of this order cannot be challenged or determined in a correction of papers case. 11. I have considered these arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the case. I find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for Jagdamba Prasad. The entry in the name of Jagdamba Prasad was made on the basis of the order of the S.K. dated July 4, 1967 against which no review or revision was filed. The validity of this order cannot be challenged in correction of papers case. Moreover, such a long standing entry cannot be corrected in these summary proceedings of correction of papers under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. I am unable to agree with the views of the learned Additional Commissioner. 12. In the result, I discharge the reference, reject the revision, of Deo Narain and set aside the order of the trial court dated May 2, 1970. The revision of Jagdamba Prasad is allowed. This order will govern Reference No. 268 of 1970-71, Faizabad in re: Deo Narain v. Jagdamba Prasad and others Revision No. 329 of 1974-75, Faizabad in re: Jagdamba Prasad v. Deo Narain. 13. C.C.O. No. 2196 for R.D.