JUDGEMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. These are two connected Writ Petitions. 2. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 160 of 2022, has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be the ex-Pradhan, wherein, he has raised his grievances, as against the impugned order dated 29th October, 2020, which was passed by the Pargana Magistrate (Sadar), Dehradun, as a consequence of which, the complaint, which was submitted by the petitioner, before him on an administrative side, has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents not to change the nature of the land or to create a third party interest over it. 3. The facts, which were pleaded by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, which was instituted on 17th January, 2022, it was on the basis; that the petitioner has admitted, that he had earlier filed a complaint, on an administrative side on 5th August, 2016, and taking cognizance to it, the A.D.M. vide his letter of 5th November, 2016, had written to the S.D.M., to take a decision on the compliant, which was submitted by the petitioner on 5th August, 2016, even thereafter, on 20th June, 2016, the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, considering the controversy, in relation to the complaint submitted, pertaining to the sale deed, which was proposed to be executed in relation to the land, which was classified as to be a “Tea Estates”, it was an act complained of by the petitioner, that the aforesaid land, since vests with the State, and it was being proceeded with to be sold, without there being a permission granted by the Committee, the petitioner prayed for, that an inquiry may be conducted, and accordingly, a report may be submitted with regard to the alleged transactions. 4. The A.D.M. is said to have submitted a report in compliance of the Commissioner’s order, by conducting an inquiry, but what is surprising is, that ever since submission of the report by the A.D.M. on 5th November, 2016, which was alleged to be in compliance of the Commissioner’s order on the earlier complaint of 5th August, 2016 of the petitioner, to what logical end, the complaint was brought to, has not been placed on record. 5. 5. Rather the petitioner had filed yet a second complaint, which was yet again submitted on an administrative side before the A.D.M. on 8th July, 2019, contending thereof, that the land in dispute, lying in khasra Nos. 365-Ka and 367-Gha, as per the khatuni of 1416 to 1421, had been recorded as Shreni 6(2) land, lying in Village Niranjanpur, which could not have been sold after 10.10.1975, because any transaction of the land recorded as “Tea Estates”, if it is made after 10.10.1975, it would be violative of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment, as rendered in Civil Appeal No. (S) 2697 of 1984, as decided on 24th October, 1996. 6. The petitioner further contended, that apart from the khatuni entries of 1416 to 1421, the aforesaid two khasra numbers, as per the basic year entry of 1359 fasli, was recorded as an abadi land, lying in Shreni-2 and there existed a temple of a deity called as “Maa Bhadra Kali” at Nagar Khera Temple, situated in an Abadi area. 7. The petitioner in a second complaint of 18th July, 2019, had submitted that the sale made after 10.10.1975, violates the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24th October, 1996, because the land which stands recorded in Shreni 6(2), would be a land, which shall stand vested with the State Government. 8. The petitioner in its complaint tried to co-relate, that the aforesaid land recorded in khasra No. 365-Ka and 367-Ga, which he contended to be the “Tea Estates”, which could not be sold, in fact, he had submitted that as per the notification issued by the State Government, i.e. the then State of U.P. on 30th December, 1939, the sale of a land by the respondents would be illegal and in violation of the Government Order dated 30th December, 1939 also, which principally intended to record the said land, as “Tea Estates”, which at the relevant point of time of issuance of the Notification on 30th December, 1939, was having an old khasra No. 208, and it was held to be a “Tea Estates” and according to Khewat No.2 of Mahaal, Mr. Bhatt Sahib, since it was notified as a “Tea Estates”, as per the Government Order of 30th December, 1939, the sale of the same by any sale deed executed after 10.10.1975, would be bad in the eyes of law. 9. Bhatt Sahib, since it was notified as a “Tea Estates”, as per the Government Order of 30th December, 1939, the sale of the same by any sale deed executed after 10.10.1975, would be bad in the eyes of law. 9. He further submitted that as per the report submitted by the Tehsildar on 19th May, 2019, on the basis of the complaint, the allegation raised by the petitioner in the complaint was said to have been found true. 10. The petitioner contended, that the respondent No. 5, in collusion with the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, had filed an objection against the complaint of the petitioner, which stood rejected by the Pargana Magistrate, by an order of 29.09.2020. 11. In the connected Writ Petition No. 951 of 2022, the petitioner, though has claimed, that a direction may be issued to the respondents to decide his application dated 8th April, 2022, but before passing any order on the complaint, submitted by way of Misc. Letter No. 228/PA/2021, the petitioner had submitted that the respondents No. 5, in fact, is a property dealer and was more interested in selling the property, being old khasra No. 205, having an area of 3.53 acres, khara No. 207/3, having an area of 0.29 acres, khasra No. 208, having an area of 1.56 acres and khasra No. 209, having an area of 0.30 acres, which is claimed to have been recorded as an agricultural land in the basic year entry of 1359 fasli. 12. The petitioner contends that the collusive sale by respondent No.5 to the Writ Petition No. 951 of 2022, which is claimed to have recorded as Khasra No. 207, as an abadi land is bad because as per the settlement proceedings, the khasra numbers as aforesaid had undergone a change and new khasra numbers, have been assigned, i.e. khasra No. 364M and 365a (min) recorded with the private persons, as it has been detailed in the Writ Petition. 13. 13. The petitioner submitted that after the land having been allegedly recorded in the name of the private persons, as detailed in para 3, the purchase of the aforesaid kharas by the sale deed dated 11th April, 2007, on the basis of the khatuni entry of 1359, the complaint of respondent No. 3 to Tehsildar on 20th May, 2010, 2nd July, 2010 and to the DGC, Revenue, on 17th September, 2010, and a complaint to the Chief Minister, alleged to have pointed out that it is a sale of a “Tea Estates” land, which vests with the State Government, it could not have been proceeded with, but however, the ADM by his order dated 13th December, 2013, had directed to maintain status quo, qua the land in question, against which, the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 951 of 2022, is said to have filed a complaint against the respondent No. 3, i.e. the petitioner of the Writ Petition No. 160 of 2022, on the ground, that on the pretext of the orders, which had been passed on an administrative side, in fact, the respondent No. 3, is interfering in the possession of the aforesaid land, where there still happens to be a dispute to be decided by its determination by the competent Courts whether it is actually a ‘Tea Estates” land, as per the Government Order dated 13th December, 1939, is a fact, which could be decided only after undertaking the revenue proceedings before the competent Court. But on an administrative application which has been submitted by the respondent No. 3, and the direction which had been issued by the executives to restrain construction of the wall, the SDM has taken cognizance to it and on 6th February, 2014, had directed the SSP to ensure that no encroachment is made on the same. 14. It has contended by the petitioner, that the Writ Petition No. 951 of 2022, respondent No. 3, being aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner dated 6th February, 2014, had preferred a Revision before the Commissioner, being Revision No.07 of 2013-14, which was too dismissed by the judgment of 05.05.2016. 15. 14. It has contended by the petitioner, that the Writ Petition No. 951 of 2022, respondent No. 3, being aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner dated 6th February, 2014, had preferred a Revision before the Commissioner, being Revision No.07 of 2013-14, which was too dismissed by the judgment of 05.05.2016. 15. The petitioner submits that when the respondents was conscious of the fact that it was the petitioner’s material right, which was likely to be affected, it required, that in the Revision, which was preferred by the respondents before the Commissioner, the petitioner ought to have been made as a party. But be it whatsoever, the Revision, which was dismissed by the judgment of 05.05.2016, it is contended by the petitioner of Writ Petition 951 of 2022, that the same has attained finality, because it was not put to challenge before any other Court 16. On the basis of the said decision of the Revisonal Court, though having been preferred without the same being supported by any provision of law, to sustain the Revision, against an administrative order of 6th February, 2014, the petitioner has contended that respondent No. 3, had yet again filed a third complaint before the Chief Minister, on which, the response was called by the endorsement made by the executive attached to the Office of the Chief Minister and on 27th November, 2017, ADM has written to the SDM to constitute a Committee and submit a report. 17. Its on the basis of the said communication, the SDM on the report, which was submitted in compliance of the order of 4th July, 2016, as directed by the Office of the Chief Minister, the SDM by the judgment of 29th October, 2020, had rejected the complaint of the respondents. 18. The petitioner contends that despite of the culmination of the proceedings by the Revisional Court’s order of 05.05.2016, by the order of the SDM rejecting the complaint on 29th October, 2020, the fresh complaint submitted by respondent No. 3, before the ADM on 31st December, 2021, the notice of which, was served upon the petitioner on 3rd January, 2022, informing thereof the fixation of the date of 12th January, 2022, for hearing, the petitioner, it was contended that the complaint submitted by respondent No. 3, which was later on numbered as Misc. Letter No. 228/PA/2021, the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 951 of 2022, since had filed earlier Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 119 of 2022, to quash the proceedings of Case No. 228/PA/2021, as instituted by respondent No. 3, but the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment of 14th January, 2022. 19. There is nothing on record to show, that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of 14th January, 2022, dismissing the Writ Petition was subjected to challenge, in any other proceedings and still during the subsistence of the judgment of the Revisional Court dated 05.05.2016, or of the SDM dated 29th October, 2020, and the judgment of this Court dated 4th January, 2022, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus for issuing an appropriate direction for deciding his application submitted on an executive side before respondent No. 2, because it was contended that the Misc. Case No. 228/PA/2021, was not sustainable and this could not have been the scope of the Writ Petition which was filed by Mr. Om Prakash Gupta, because of the earlier dismissal of the Writ Petition, by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 4th January, 2022. But still looking to the overall backdrop of the case and the impediments, which were being created for and by the respective parties to the dispute to get the matter resolved on its own merits, was an earlier proceedings, and the present proceedings too, which was held on administrative side. This Court is of the view that administrative proceedings cannot create any hindrance as such for either of the parties to approach the competent judicial Courts created under the law for redressal of their grievance. 20. The petitioner submitted, that there was yet another order, which was creating an impediment, which was rendered by the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, in Misc. Case No. 9 of 2019-20, which was instituted at the behest of the private respondent Ram Sukh, who have been impleaded as a convenor of respondent No.3 in the capacity of being an ex-Village Pradhan. 21. The grievance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition is, that the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the petitioner’s application dated 8th April, 2022, which was filed by him before the Office of the Assistant Collector, Dehradun, on 31st December, 2021. 22. 21. The grievance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition is, that the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the petitioner’s application dated 8th April, 2022, which was filed by him before the Office of the Assistant Collector, Dehradun, on 31st December, 2021. 22. On the other hand, in relation to the same set of property, Ram Sukh, who claims himself to be an ex-Pradhan and the convener of Urban Adhikar Sangharsh Parishad, Dehradun, had filed a complaint on an administrative side before the Assistant Collector, which has been rejected by an order dated 29th October, 2020, against which, Ram Sukh, has preferred the present Writ Petition, praying for quashing of the order dated 29th October, 2020, passed by the SDM, with a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to create a third party interest qua the same piece of land, which was a subject matter in the previous Writ Petition, where a private complaint has been filed by the petitioner of the said Writ Petition. 23. In fact, if the genesis of the controversy is taken into consideration, the petitioners of both the Writ Petitions were claiming their individual rights, pertaining to the classification of the land, and its ultimate consequential vesting, which as per the determination made on an administrative side by the SDM, while rejecting the claim had observed that Khasra No. 365-Ka, having an area of 1.4 acres of land has been recorded as Tea Garden in 1359 fasli, and the tenure holders have been recorded as Shreni-1 kastkar 24. Simultaneously, he observed that in the revenue records, the land, in question, is shown to have been recorded as Johar/Talab, prior to the bandobasti, and it continues to be recorded so in the same capacity being a land, which would be falling to be a land under Section 132 of Z.A. & L.R. Act. 25. Simultaneously, he observed that in the revenue records, the land, in question, is shown to have been recorded as Johar/Talab, prior to the bandobasti, and it continues to be recorded so in the same capacity being a land, which would be falling to be a land under Section 132 of Z.A. & L.R. Act. 25. This Court is of the view, that looking to the nature of pleadings taken in both these Writ Petitions, there have been an inter se rival claim over the revenue land falling within the ambit of definition of the land provided under Section 3 (14) of the Z.A. & L.R. Act and this Court is of the view that either of the petitioners of the two Writ Petition, could not have agitated their grievances by filing a private complaint before the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, who has decided the same, as SDM on administrative side, without exercising his judicial powers vested with him, either under Section 229-B or under Section 209 or under Section 176 of the Act or any other provisions as contained under Schedule- 2 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. 26. In that eventuality, the initiation of the proceedings by the petitioners of the respective Writ Petitions itself on the basis of private consecutive complaints, was not having any backing of law, which could have conferred jurisdiction to the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, or any other authority referred in the Writ Petition, to decide the respective rights in relation to the nature of land, its vesting, its effect of being a land under Section 132, the land having been recorded in the bandaobasti, all these vital aspects are required to be gone into in a regular judicial proceeding, which is required to be initiated by any of the effected parties to the Writ Petitions, before the competent Courts, created under the Act. 27. Having not done so, both the Writ Petitions since are emanating as a consequence of the order, which had been passed on administrative side are not sustainable and no grievance of the petitioners, as raised in the Writ Petitions, qua the impugned action taken in relation to revenue land could be redressed by the Writ Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by scrutinizing an executive order in relation to the land, which lies in the revenue area. 28. 28. While dismissing the Writ Petitions, it will be left open for the petitioners of the two Writ Petitions, that if they have any adverse claim over the land, which was the subject matter of the two Writ Petitions, and the proceedings, which were drawn before the Assistant Collector, on an executive side by filing complaints, they may have their recourses resorted to, in accordance with the proceedings contemplated under Schedule-2 of the Z.A. & L.R. Act, by drawing an appropriate proceedings before the competent Court, which has to be judicially agitated on its own merit by the Courts defined under U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The right over the revenue land cannot be decided by the exercise of an executive direction. 29. Subject to the aforesaid liberty being granted to the petitioners of each Writ Petition, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the respective petitioners to get their rights settled by adjudication, which has to be made by the competent Courts available to them under Schedule-2 of the Z.A. & L.R. Act. If either of the petitioners resort to the proceedings, as permissible under law, contained under Schedule-2 of the Act, that will be decided by the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, without being prejudiced by any observation or the finding, which has been recorded in the orders, which had been passed on the administrative side.