JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 12 and Ms. Archana Tyagi, Counsel for the respondent No. 5. The instant writ petition has been filed by Shekhar Agrawal seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 6.1.2015 and 23.4.2004 passed by the Board of Revenue and the Collector, Meerut Division, Meerut, respectively. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that a suit for partition under section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was filed by the respondents 5 to 11. The petitioner and respondents 4 and 12 were arrayed as the contesting defendants. The final decree was prepared on 5.3.2002 on the basis of preliminary decree dated 25.1.2001. It is admitted to the parties that possession in pursuance of the final decree for partition was delivered on 25.5.2002. 3. On 3.3.2003, an application was filed by the respondent No. 4, Dipendra Agrawal praying that the dimensions of the kurra allotted to him be mentioned after summoning the original record from the record room. 4. On this application, an order appears to have been passed on 7.3.2003 which states that the original record was summoned from the record room and a report was submitted by the Lekhpal indicating the dimensions of the kurra by means of a spot map dated 7.3.2003. This report was accepted and spot map was made part of the order dated 5.3.2002. 5. Against this order, the respondents filed a restoration application on 16.10.2003. The Trial Court rejected this restoration application on 13.1.2004. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision No. 39 of 2003-04. This revision was allowed on 23.4.2004 by the Additional Collector, Meerut Division, Meerut, the orders dated 13.1.2004 and 5.3.2002 were set aside and the matter was remanded back with the direction that the dimensions of the kurras be recorded, only after notice to the concerned parties. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 14.5.2004. 6. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner was challenged by means of a revision before the Board of Revenue. This revision was filed by Dipendra Agrawal, respondent No. 4. The Board of Revenue has by the impugned order dated 6.1.2015 dismissed the revision. 7. Hence, this writ petition filed by the Shekhar Agrawal. 8. 6. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner was challenged by means of a revision before the Board of Revenue. This revision was filed by Dipendra Agrawal, respondent No. 4. The Board of Revenue has by the impugned order dated 6.1.2015 dismissed the revision. 7. Hence, this writ petition filed by the Shekhar Agrawal. 8. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 23.4.2004 is without jurisdiction as the final decree dated 5.3.2003 was never challenged. It has also the case of the petitioner that the order dated 23.4.2004 was obtained by the respondents 5 to 11, by concealing material facts. 9. Ms. Archana Tyagi, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned orders. The orders impugned came to be passed upon an application filed by the respondent No. 4, who prayed that the dimensions of his kurra be recorded in the final decree. This application, as on date, stands disposed of with the observation that any modification in the decree is to be made after notice to all concerned parties. This was the order passed by the Additional Collector which stands affirmed by the Board of Revenue. For all practical purposes, an application filed by the respondent No. 4 stands disposed of and the petitioner who had never filed this application is therefore, not an aggrieved party and cannot maintain the writ petition. 10. Shri Samir Sharma who appears for the respondent No. 12 submits that the application filed by the respondent No. 4, Dipedra Agrawal was at best an application under section 152, C.P.C., for correction of the decree. This correction was necessitated on account of the dispute arising on the spot. It was in this context that the respondent No. 4, Dipendra Agrawal had filed the application which was rightly allowed. By the correction made in the decree, only the dimensions of the kurras have been mentioned which is not contrary to the case of any of the parties. Shri Sharma has filed a counter affidavit supporting the petitioner and he submits that the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 12. Shri Sharma has filed a counter affidavit supporting the petitioner and he submits that the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 12. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner the matter stands remanded back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the application filed by Dipendra Agrawal. Dipendra Agrawal, who had filed this application has not challenged the impugned orders and it is, therefore, clear that he is not aggrieved by the matter having been remanded back for consideration of this application. It is also clear that the petitioner in the writ petition is not claiming through Dipendra Agrawal, who is alleged to have executed a sale-deed of his kurra in favour of the third parties. 13. In my considered opinion, it was either Dipendra Agrawal or his transferees who could have maintained this writ petition. The orders impugned have not come to be passed at the instance of the petitioner or in proceedings arising from any application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that the petitioner has no locus to maintain this writ petition. 14. The allegations that the application under section 182-B was filed as the final decree had been obtained by concealing material facts or that the final decree was not correct as it was passed regarding land which had already been acquired by the Government, are in my considered opinion, grounds for either an appeal or review. This could not be a ground for filing an application under section 182-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which only provides that the principles to be followed while partition of a joint holding will be, as may be prescribed. 15. Even otherwise, no interference is required inasmuch as the matter stands remanded back to the Trial Court where the parties will have every right to be heard and to make their submissions. 16. Accordingly and for this reasons given above, this writ petition is found to be, not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, Shekhar Agrawal. It is accordingly dismissed.