Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 886 (ALL)

Raj Pati v. Board of Revenue, U. P. , Allahabad

1984-10-22

B.L.YADAV

body1984
JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This writ petition arises out of proceedings for exchange under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The exchange proceeding started between the Gaon Sabha and respondent no. 4, Raj Bali. The land of the Goan Sabha has been taken only to the extent of 13 acre in plot no. 419, whereas an area of 26 acre of plot no. 279 of respondent no. 4 has been permitted to be exchanged. In this way just the double area has been given to the Gaon Sabha in lieu of the area taken from the Gaon Sabha. In this way by this exchange the Gaon Sabha cannot be said to be loser. The petitioner was not a party to this proceeding. His application for impleadment was rejected. Thereafter his revision was also rejected and he did not pursue his remedy any further, rather against the final order of exchange, he filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, without being impleaded to the proceedings under Section 161 of the Act. The Additional Commissioner recommended that the revision may be accepted. But the Board of Revenue by the Impugned order dated 30.7.84 rejected the revision of the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that some suit regarding the title of plot no. 279 is still pending between the Gaon Sabha and respondent nos. 4 and 5. Since the petitioner did not pursue his remedy for impleadment and as apparently the Gaon Sabha is not loser in the exchange, there does not appear to be any injustice having been done to the Gaon Sabha, particularly when the Gaon Sabha itself has not come directly to file a writ petition. The petitioner has obviously no rights in the land exchanged and under these circumstances, there is no question of any injustice being done to him. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of record. No ground for interference has been made out. The petitioner can, however, pursue any other remedy available to him. 3. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed summarily.