JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. Heard Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rajesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2, Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 4-Gram Sabha. 2. Petitioners by means of the present petition have approached this Court for the following reliefs :- "(a). issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 1588 of 2017 Shiv Chander Devi & another v. Shiv Chander Devi & another relating to property bearing Gata No. 169/3 area 21/2/3 decimal situated at Gram Nasirpur, Pargana, Dehat Amanant, District Varanasi. (b). issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by respondent no. 2 in Case No. 124 of 2017 (Shiv Chander Devi & another v. Shiv Chander Devi & another) arising out of proceeding under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 relating to property bearing Gata No. 169/3 area 21/2/3 decimal situated at Gram Nasirpur, Pargana Dehat Amanant, District Varanasi. (c). issue a suitable writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no. 3 from alienating or creating any third party interest on the property in question pertaining to the property bearing Gata No. 169/3 area 21/2/3 decimal situated at Gram Nasirpur, Pargana Dehat Amanant, District Varanasi, during the pendency of the present writ petition." 3. From the records of the present writ petition it is evident that the matter relates to Gata No. 169/3 area 21/2/3 decimal situated at Gram Nasirpur, Pargana Dehat Amanant, District Varanasi. 4. On 23.03.2017 a case under Section 144 read with section 133 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was preferred by respondent no. 3 against the petitioner relating to property bearing Gata No. 169/3 area 21/2/3 decimal situated at Gram Nasirpur, Pargana Dehat Amanant, District Varanasi. 5. The allegations against the petitioners was that the father of the petitioners executed a sale deed on 17.09.1991. On the basis of the said sale deed the respondent no. 3 became the owner of the property in question and is in possession of the same. 5. The allegations against the petitioners was that the father of the petitioners executed a sale deed on 17.09.1991. On the basis of the said sale deed the respondent no. 3 became the owner of the property in question and is in possession of the same. Due to some inadvertence and typographical error in the sale deed, Arazi No. 1691 has been typed in place of Arazi No. 169/3. There is no Arazi No. 1691 in existence on the property in question. It has been alleged that the respondent no. 3 was totally unaware of the typographical error as she was not staying in District Varanasi. 6. Respondent no. 3 on receipt of information through some reliable sources had filed an application for correction. It is also reflected that while moving the application under Section 144 read with Section 133 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, respondent no. 3 has claimed for the relief of declaration on the property in question along with the relief of restoration of possession and the petitioners may be evicted from the same. 7. Petitioners have filed a detailed objection/written statement to the claim set up by respondent no. 3. It has also been claimed that the name of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records 30 years back. Photocopy of the Khatauni of Fasli Year 1416-1421, 1422- 1427 is enclosed with this petition as Annexure-7. 8. In this background Shri Chandani precisely submits that the petitioners had also proceeded to move an application for declaration of property in question as 'Abadi' under Section 143 of the UPZA&LR Act in the year 2003 and the same was allowed on 03.03.2003. Consequently, the same has also been recorded as 'Abadi' in the relevant revenue records. 9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the property in question has been declared as 'Abadi' under Section 143 of the UPZA&LR Act, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court will be barred and the entire proceedings are vitiated. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh reported in 1974 AIR (SC) 1657 (especially Paragraph 10) wherein the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Natho v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad reported in 1966 All LJ 563 has been affirmed. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh reported in 1974 AIR (SC) 1657 (especially Paragraph 10) wherein the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Natho v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad reported in 1966 All LJ 563 has been affirmed. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in the case of Ram Deo v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti reported in 2007 (102) R.D. 761 and in the case of Ram Prasad and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and others reported in 2004 (96) R.D. 303. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that ignoring all the legal propositions, the second respondent in the most arbitrary and illegal manner has proceeded to pass a non-speaking order on 13.11.2007, even though the petitioners have taken all the grounds and also placed the aforesaid authority before the Revisional Authority but the reason best known to the Revisional Authority, the same has also been rejected by an order dated 28.02.2018. 11. He submits that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances the entire proceedings are unsustainable and the Revisional Court is not competent to decide the issue. 12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the factual and legal aspect of the matter but however learned counsel for the third respondent fairly states that the entire proceedings have been initiated under Section 144 read with Section 133 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 wherein the preliminary issues were framed and in case the Court finds it appropriate then the matter may be remitted back to the authority for deciding the preliminary issues. 13. Heard rival submissions and perused the records of the present petition. 14. In view of the aforesaid it is clearly established beyond doubt that the declaration has already been made under Section 143 of the UPZA&LR Act and the entire proceedings so initiated by respondent no. 3 is not maintainable and the same is barred by law. 15. 13. Heard rival submissions and perused the records of the present petition. 14. In view of the aforesaid it is clearly established beyond doubt that the declaration has already been made under Section 143 of the UPZA&LR Act and the entire proceedings so initiated by respondent no. 3 is not maintainable and the same is barred by law. 15. In order to appreciate the controversy in hand, it would be appropriate to have a glance of the relevant Section 143 which is being reproduced herein below :- "Use of holding for industrial or residential purposes- (1) Where a (Bhumidhar with transferable rights) uses his holding or part thereof for a purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the subdivision may, suo motu or on an application, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed, make a declaration to that effect. (1-A) Where a declaration under sub-section (1) has to be made in respect of a part of the holding, the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the sub-division may, in the manner prescribed, demarcate such part for the purposes of such declaration. (2) Upon the grant of the declaration mentioned in sub-section (1), the provision of this Chapter (other than this section) shall cease to apply to the (Bhumidhar with transferable rights) with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject. (3) Where a bhumidhar with transferable rights has been granted, before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act 1978, any loan by the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation or by any other corporation owned or controlled by the State Government, on the security of any land held by such Bhumidhar, the provisions of this Chapter (other than this section) shall cease to apply to such Bhumidhar with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject." 16. Section 143(2) clearly provides that upon the grant of the declaration mentioned in sub-section (1), the provision of this Chapter (other than this section) shall cease to apply to the (Bhumidhar with transferable rights) with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject. 17. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances the Court is of the considered opinion that the entire proceedings are unsustainable. Accordingly, the orders impugned dated 13.11.2017 and 28.02.2018 are hereby set-aside. However, liberty is accorded to the 3rd respondent to agitate her claim before the appropriate forum. 18. With the aforesaid observations/direction the present writ petition is allowed.