JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mohammad Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.V.Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.D.Shahi and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.3, Sri Harishchandra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Avneesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State. 2. By means of present petition, petitioner has impeached the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.1-Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in revision, registered as Revision No.REV/2686/2022/Ayodhya, Computerized Case No.R20220423002686 (Devesh Singh vs. Maya Singh) filed under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"). 3. Brief facts, admitted between the parties, are to the effect that the dispute relates to Gata No. 853 situated at Village-Madna Uparhar Amsin, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Ayodhya. In Gata No.853, in issue, respondent No.4-Smt. Sukhmeena Singh was having 3/4th share and Rukmani Singh was having 1/4th share. Undisputed area of the Gata in issue is 0.449 Hect., out of which, petitioner purchased 0.11225 Hectare by means of registered sale deed dated 18.03.2021 and in the said sale deed, boundaries of the property purchased by the petitioner are described as ^^iwjc&pdjksM dPpk 1 yV~Bk ckngw [ksr ua0&849] 850 vkfn] if'pe&lhek xzke tykyqnhu uxj] mRrj&lhek xzke tykyqnhuuxj] nf{k.k&xkVk la0 857 vU; O;fDrA** 4. Further, Respondent No.4-Smt. Sukhmeena Singh also executed sale deed(s) in favour of respondent No.2-Girish Kumar Singh and respondent No.3-Devesh Singh, which were registered on 23.05.2022 and 24.05.2022, respectively. After these sale deeds, indicated hereinabove, petitioner became owner of 1/4 part of the property in issue and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 became owner of 3/4 part. 5. It would be apt to refer here that the boundaries indicated in the subsequent sale deed(s) executed on 23.05.2022 and 24.05.2022 are similar as indicated in the sale deed of the petitioner. The boundaries indicated in the sale deed(s) subsequent to the sale deed of the petitioner are as ^^iwjc&pdjksM dPpk 1 yV~Bk ckngw [ksr ua0&849] 850 vkfn] if'pe&lhek xzke tykyqnhu uxj] mRrj&lhek xzke tykyqnhuuxj] nf{k.k&xkVk la0 857 vU; O;fDrA** 6. The boundaries indicated in the sale deed(s) subsequent to the sale deed of the petitioner are as ^^iwjc&pdjksM dPpk 1 yV~Bk ckngw [ksr ua0&849] 850 vkfn] if'pe&lhek xzke tykyqnhu uxj] mRrj&lhek xzke tykyqnhuuxj] nf{k.k&xkVk la0 857 vU; O;fDrA** 6. Petitioner preferred an application under Section 80 of the Code of 2006 for declaration of holding/for use for non-agricultural purposes on 04.01.2022, which was registered as Case No.16 of 2022, Computerized Case No.T2022423450116 (Maya Singh vs. State of U.P.), and for the purposes of disposal of the said case, a report was called for, which was subsequently submitted by the Revenue Official on 20.04.2022 and thereafter, based upon the report of the Revenue Official, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya, allowed the application vide its order dated 21.04.2022. 7. It would be apt to refer here that one application was moved by the petitioner under Section 80 of the Code of 2006 with regard to Gata Nos.853 and 854, situated at Village-Madna Uparhar Amsin, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Ayodhya, with the prayer that the portion purchased by the petitioner in both these Gata(s) be declared so as to use it for non-agricultural purposes. In other words, composite application was filed for both the Gata(s). 8. On coming to know about the order dated 21.04.2022, an application for setting aside the order dated 21.04.2022 and restoration of the Case No.16 of 2022 was preferred by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, which was registered as Case No.RST/ 4456/2022, Computerized Case No.T202204230104456 (Devesh Singh & Others vs. Maya Singh). 8. On coming to know about the order dated 21.04.2022, an application for setting aside the order dated 21.04.2022 and restoration of the Case No.16 of 2022 was preferred by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, which was registered as Case No.RST/ 4456/2022, Computerized Case No.T202204230104456 (Devesh Singh & Others vs. Maya Singh). The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya, after due notice and hearing the parties dispose of the application vide its order dated 10.10.2022 in following terms:- ^^i=koyh izLrqrA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd oknhx.k nsos'k flag iq= ';keyky flag o lq[kehuk iRUkh Lo0 d#.k dqekj flag }kjk vkns'k fnuk¡d 21-04- 2022 ds fo#) izLrqr vkifRr esa dgk x;k fd iz'uxr Hkwfe xkVk la[;k 853 dk caVokjk ugha gqvk gS rFkk fcuk caVokjk gq, iz'uxr Hkwfe dks vd`f"kd ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS] rRi'pkr fnuk¡d 16-06-2022 dks iz'uxr vkns'k fnuk¡d 21-04-2022 dk fdz;kUo;u LFkfxr dj fn;k x;kA xzke eM+uk mijgkj] ijxuk veflu] rglhy lnj] tuin v;ks/;k esa fLFkr xkVk la[;k 853 ds caVokjs dk okn] dEI;wVjhd`r okn la[;k Vh202204230104762] okn la[;k 632 vUrxZr /kkjk 166 m0iz0jk0la0 ds rgr lq[kehuk flag cuke ek;k flag vkfn ;ksftr fd;k x;k] ftlesa izkjfEHkd vkns'k fnuk¡d 16-06-2022 dks ikfjr fd;k tk pqdk gSA izkjfEHkd vkns'k fnuk¡d 16-06-2022 ds dze esa rglhynkj lnj }kjk izLrqr dqjkZ caVokjk o jaxHksnh uD'kk Hkh U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdkj fd;k tk pqdk gSA dqjkZ caVokjk o jaxHksnh uD'kk esa] tgka ij Jherh ek;k flag dk va'k n'kkZ;k x;k gS] mlh LFky ij okn la[;k 81] dEI;wVjhd`r okn la[;k Vh202242350116 Jherh ek;k flag cuke m0iz0 ljdkj] vUrxZr /kkjk 80 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnuk¡d 21-04-2022 izHkkoh gksxkA ,slh fLFkfr esa LFkxu vkns'k fnuk¡d 16-06-2022 dks okil ysrs gq, okn dh dk;Zokgh dks lekIRk fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% mijksDRk foospuk ds vk/kkj ij nsos'k flag iq= ';keyky flag vkfn }kjk izLRkqr vkifRr fujLRk djrs gq, LFkxu vkns'k fnuk¡d 16- 06-2022 okil fy;k tkrk gSA vkns'k dh izfr jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa vadu gsrq rglhynkj lnj dks Hksth tk;A okn vuqikyu i=koyh jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj lafpr gksA** 9. Being aggrieved by the order(s) dated 10.10.2022 and 21.04.2022, a revision under Section 210 of the Code of 2006 was filed by the respondent No.2, in which, the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 has been passed by the respondent No.1-Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow. Being aggrieved by the order(s) dated 10.10.2022 and 21.04.2022, a revision under Section 210 of the Code of 2006 was filed by the respondent No.2, in which, the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 has been passed by the respondent No.1-Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow. The relevant portion of the order dated 11.01.2023 reads as under:- 6& rRdze esa mHk; i{kksa ds fo+n~oku vf/koDrkvksa dks lquk ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k lqlaxr vfHkys[kksa dk ifj'khyu@ijh{k.k fd;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k lqlaxr vfHkys[kksa ds ifj'khyu@ijh{k.k ls fofnr gS fd lq[kehuk flag us iz'uxr Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa /kkjk&116 ds rgr okn la[;k 4762@2022 dEI;wVjhd`r okn la[;k&Vh202204230104762 lq[kehuk flag cuke Jherh ek;k flag vkfn ;ksftr fd;k ftlesa fnukad 16-06-2022 dks izkjfEHkd fMdzh dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k rFkk mi ftykf/kdkjh n~okjk vfUre vkns'k fnukad 10-10-2022 ikfjr fd;k x;kA blds iwoZ iz'uxr Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa Jherh ek;k flag us mi ftykf/kdkjh ds U;k;ky; esa /kkjk&80 ds rgr vd`f"kd iz[;kfir fd;s tkus gsrq okn ;ksftr fd;k] ftl ij rglhynkj us fnukad 20-04-2022 dks vk[;k izLrqr dhA bl vk[;k ds vk/kkj ij mi ftykf/kdkjh us vxys gh fnu fnukad 21-04-2022 dks iz'uxr Hkwfe dks vd`f"kd iz[;kfir djus dk vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;kA Li"Vr% fcuk fof/kd #i ls cVokjk gq, iz'uxr Hkwfe dks vd`f"kd iz[;kfir fd;k x;k gS] tks m0iz0 jktLo lafgrk&2006 dh /kkjk&80¼4½ dk mYya?ku gSA vr% fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk mi ftykf/kdkjh n~okjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 10-10- 2022 o 21-04-2022 fujLr fd;s tkrs gSaA 7&i'pkr vko';d dk;Zokgh i=koyh nkf[ky&nQ~rj gksA** 10. Impeaching the order dated 11.01.2023, Sri M.A.Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.V.Chaudhari, appearing for the petitioner stated as under:- (i) The application for recall of the order dated 21.04.2022 was not maintainable by Devesh Singh. (ii) The property in issue i.e. Gata No. 853 was purchased by the petitioner based upon the mutual partition/family settlement. As such, no interference was required by the authority concerned in the order passed on the application under Section 80 of the Code of 2006. (iii) The revision filed by Devesh Singh alone itself was not maintainable as he was not the recorded tenure holder. As such, the order passed by the Revisional Authority is without jurisdiction. As such, no interference was required by the authority concerned in the order passed on the application under Section 80 of the Code of 2006. (iii) The revision filed by Devesh Singh alone itself was not maintainable as he was not the recorded tenure holder. As such, the order passed by the Revisional Authority is without jurisdiction. The Revisional Authority erred in law and fact both in interfering in the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya passed on 21.04.2022, subsequently, clarified on 10.10.2022 on the application preferred by the respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 for restoration of case. (iv) Preliminary decree filed by respondent No.4-Smt. Sukhmeena Singh in the suit for partition, under Section 116 of the Code of 2006, was passed on 16.06.2022 and in terms of the preliminary decree, the map was prepared and thereafter, final decree was passed on 10.10.2022 against which first appeal i.e. Appeal No.2010 of 2022, Computerized Case No.C202204000002010 (Sukhmeena Singh & Others vs. Smt. Maya Singh & Others) was filed and the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 24.01.2023 and now the second appeal is pending, wherein, no interim order has been passed in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and being so, the order dated 10.10.2022 based upon the order in partition suit was just and proper and interference in the same in the revision is unjustified. (v) Map prepared by the Advocate Commissioner also proves that the land was partitioned. (vi) If it is presume that no partition took place regarding Gata No.853 even in that event, the order regarding Gata No.854 ought not to have been interfered with. 11. Per contra, Sri R.D.Shahi and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.3, Sri Harishchandra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 stated that:- (i) Application under Section 80 of the Code of 2006 by the petitioner alone regarding un-partitioned land itself was not maintainable, as such, no order could have been passed by any of the authorities including the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya. A reference has been made in this regard to Proviso to Section 80(1) and Sub Section 4 of Section 80 of the Code of 2006. A reference has been made in this regard to Proviso to Section 80(1) and Sub Section 4 of Section 80 of the Code of 2006. (ii) Respondent No.3-Devesh Singh, after execution of sale deed by respondent No.4-Smt. Sukhmeena Singh, in his favour entered into the shoes of Smt. Sukhmeena Singh, who admittedly, was co-sharer of the petitioner, as such, respondent No.3-Devesh Singh was having right to move the application for restoration as also to file a revision. (iii) Any interference in the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 by this Court would revive the illegal order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya on the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 80 of the Code of 2006 as also the subsequent order dated 10.10.2022. It is settled principle of law that issuance of a writ or quashing/setting aside of an order if revives another pernicious or wrong or illegal order then in that eventuality the writ court should not interfere in the matter and should refuse to exercise its discretionary power conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, a reference has been made to the judgment decided on 24.02.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.343 of 1999 (Atul Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P.). (iv) The second appeal challenging the order(s) passed in the proceedings related to Section 116 of the Code of 2006 has been filed wherein records have been summoned and the matter is still sub-judice before the statutory forum. Prayer is to dismiss the petition. 12. Considered the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including the order impugned. 13. Prayer is to dismiss the petition. 12. Considered the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including the order impugned. 13. In order to appreciating and deciding the controversy involved in the present petition, this court is of the view that in the instant case Section 80 of the Code of 2006, as applicable on the date of preferring the application, is relevant and being so, the same is extracted hereinbelow:- "[80] Use of holding for Industrial, Commercial or Residential purposes.- (1) Where a bhumidhar with transferable rights uses his holding or part thereof, for industrial, commercial or residential purposes, the Sub-Divisional Officer may, suomotu or on an application moved by such bhumidhar, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed, ether make a declaration that the land is being used for the purpose not connected with agriculture or reject the application. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall take a decision on the application within forty five working days from the date of receipt of the application. In case the application is rejected, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall state the reasons in writing for such rejection and inform the applicant of his decision. *[Provided that if the application for declaration is accompanied with the prescribed fee and in case of joint holding, no objection of co-tenure holders is attached in case of co-tenure holder and if the declaration is not made by the Sub-Divisional Officer with forty-five days as aforesaid, then the declaration shall be deemed to have been made. Tehsildar will make a record of it in the revenue records, with the comment "subject to the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer”. If any affected party wants to file an objection in relation to the said declaration, it may file an objection in the competent court]. (2) Where a bhumidhar with transferable rights proposes to use in future his holding or part thereof, for industrial, commercial or residential purposes, the Sub-Divisional Officer may on an application moved by such bhumidhar, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed, either make a declaration that the land may be used for the purpose not connected with agriculture or reject the application, within forty five working days from the date of receipt of the application. In case the application is rejected, the Sub-Divisional officer shall state the reasons in writing of such rejection and inform the applicant of his decision: Provided further that if the bhumidhar fails to start the proposed non agricultural activity within a period of five years from the date of declaration under this sub-section, then the declaration under sub-section (2) for the holding or part thereof shall lapse: Provided also that a declaration under this sub-section shall not amount to change of land use and the land shall continue to be treated as agricultural land only. However, the bhumidhar shall be entitled to obtain loan and other necessary permissions, clearances etc. for the activity or project, proposed on the holding or part thereof, for which declaration under this subsection has been obtained. (3) A bhumidhar possessing declaration under subsection (2) for his holding or part thereof, may apply to Sub-Divisional officer for converting declaration under sub-section (2) to a declaration under subsection (1), after completion of construction activity or start of the proposed non-agricultural activity, within a period of five years from declaration under subsection (2). On receipt of such an application, the Sub-Divisional officer, after making such enquiry as necessary, shall approve or reject the application within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the application. In case of rejection, he shall record in writing the reasons for such rejection; Provided that for conversion of declaration under subsection (2) to a declaration under sub-section (1), the bhumidhar shall be liable to pay only the balance amount of fee payable, calculated at prevailing circle rate, after adjusting the amount already paid by him for declaration under sub-section (2) earlier. (4) No application for a declaration under sub-section (1) or (2), moved by any co-bhumidhar having undivided interest in bhumidhari land shall be maintainable, unless application is moved by all the co-bhumidhars of such bhumidhari land. In case only one of the co-bhumidhar wants to get a declaration for his share in the land with joint interest, then such an application shall be entertained only after the respective shares of the co-bhumidhars in the land have been divided in accordance with the provisions of law. (5) The application for declaration [under sub-section (1) or sub-section(2)] shall contain such particulars and shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed. (5) The application for declaration [under sub-section (1) or sub-section(2)] shall contain such particulars and shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed. (6) Where the application under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) is made in respect of a part of the holding, the sub-divisional officer may, in the manner prescribed, demarcate such part for purposes of such declaration. (7) No declaration under this section shall be made by the sub-divisional officer, if he is satisfied that the land or part thereof is being used or is proposed to be used for a purpose which is likely to cause a public nuisance or to affect adversely public order, public health, safety or convenience or which is against the uses proposed in the master plan. (8) In case the land or part thereof for which a declaration under this section is being sought falls within the area notified under any Urban or Industrial Development Authority, then prior permission of the concerned Development Authority shall be mandatory. (9) The State Government may fix the scale of fees for declaration under this section and different fees may be fixed for different purposes: Provided that if the applicant uses the holding or part thereof, for his own residential purpose, no fee shall be charged for the declaration under this section.”" 14. In view of Proviso to Section 80(1) as also Sub Section 4 of Section 80 of the Code of 2006, this Court has to see as to whether the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 80(1) of the Code of 2006 was maintainable or not. 15. It would be apt to say here that from the Proviso to Sub Section 1, it appears that to maintain an application "no objection of co-tenure holders is required" and from the Sub Section 4, it appears that "No application for a declaration by any co-bhumidhar having undivided interest in bhumidhari land shall be maintainable, unless application is moved by all the co-bhumidhars of such bhumidhari land and in case only one of the co-bhumidhar wants to get a declaration for his share n the land with joint interest, then such an application shall be entertained only after the respective shares of the cobhumidhars in the land have been divided in accordance with the provisions of law." 16. From the above indicated facts of the case and sale deed(s), referred above, this Court finds that the boundaries indicated in all the sale deed(s) including the sale deed executed by respondent No.4-Smt. Sukhmeena Singh in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the same and described as ^^iwjc&pdjksM dPpk 1 yV~Bk ckngw [ksr ua0&849] 850 vkfn] if'pe&lhek xzke tykyqnhu uxj] mRrj&lhek xzke tykyqnhuuxj] nf{k.k&xkVk la0 857 vU; O;fDrA** 17. No other document, except referred above, has been placed before this Court to substantiate the fact that the petitioner purchased part of the Gata No. 853 after due partition by metes and bounds. 18. Further, if there was a partition between Smt. Sukhmeena Singh and Rukmani then the said fact ought to have been mentioned in the sale deed(s) and the same ought to have been explained by the boundaries indicated in the sale deed(s). However, the sale deed(s) are silent on this aspect. Meaning thereby that no settlement took place prior to execution of sale deed(s), indicated above. 19. Thus, from the aforesaid including the boundaries indicated in the sale deed(s), this Court is of the view that without actual partition by metes and bounds, the concerned sold their share in Gata No. 853. 20. So as the map prepared by the advocate commissioner in the injunction suit filed by respondent No.3-Devesh Singh annexed at Page No. 143 of the Paper book is concerned, this Court is of the view that the same can not be relied upon to record a finding that the property was partitioned prior to filing of application under Section 80 of the Code of 2006. 21. Regarding submissions related to Gata No.854 made by Sri Khan, this Court, from the record particularly Annexure No.3 to the petition, finds that total area of Gata No.854 appears to be 0.2870 Hect. and out of the same, the petitioner purchased 0.10790 Hect. land and therefrom, it further appears that despite joint holding no objection of co-tenure holder was filed nor in the petition it has been specifically stated that the shares of the co-bhumidhars in the land have been divided in accordance with the provisions of law prior to filing of application under Section 80 of the Code of 2006. 22. land and therefrom, it further appears that despite joint holding no objection of co-tenure holder was filed nor in the petition it has been specifically stated that the shares of the co-bhumidhars in the land have been divided in accordance with the provisions of law prior to filing of application under Section 80 of the Code of 2006. 22. In view of aforesaid, this Court is of firm view that prior to preferring the application under Section 80 of the Code of 2006, the land/plot(s) in issue i.e. Gata Nos.853 and 854 were not partitioned by metes and bounds, as such, the same was not maintainable in view of proviso to Section 80(1) as also 80(4) of the Code of 2006 and being so, no order could have been passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya on the said application. The order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya would be within jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Code of 2006 if the order is passed on an application which is maintainable as per Section 80 else would be without jurisdiction. In passing the order on an application which itself was not maintainable, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya exceeded its jurisdiction. Thus, the order dated 21.04.2022 was an illegal and non-est order as was passed on an application which was not maintainable, as such, subsequent order dated 10.10.2022 passed on an application for setting aside the order dated 21.04.2022, registered as Case No.RST/4456/2022, though passed on the basis of decree in partition suit which is sub-judice in second appeal, can not be said to be a valid/legal order. 23. Regarding maintainability of the revision by Devesh Singh (respondent No.3) alone, this Court is of the view that revision was maintainable. It is in view of the fact that after purchasing some part of Gata No.853, Devesh Singh became the co-bhumidhar/co-tenure holder and being so as also considering the rights of a co-bhumidhar/co-tenure holder in the land in issue, in the proceedings initiated under Section 80 of the Code of 2006 an opportunity of hearing to Devesh Singh was required. 24. If the submissions of Sri Khan on the issue of maintainability are taken on its face value, even then no interference is required in the impugned order. 24. If the submissions of Sri Khan on the issue of maintainability are taken on its face value, even then no interference is required in the impugned order. It is for the reason that it is settled principle of law that issuance of a writ or quashing/setting aside of an order if revives another pernicious or wrong or illegal order then in that eventuality the writ court should not interfere in the matter and should refuse to exercise its power conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. In addition to above, in A.M.Allison vs. B.L.Sen; AIR 1957 SC 227 , an objection was raised that the Deputy Collector had no Jurisdiction to determine the question. The Supreme Court refused to entertain this objection on the ground that the order was challenged in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was observed:- "Proceedings by way of certiorari are "not of course". (Vide Halsbury's 'Laws of England', Hailsharn Edition, Vol. 9, paras 1480 and 1481, pp. 877-878). The High Court of Assam had the power to refuse the writs if it was satisfied that there was no failure of justice, and in these appeals which are directed against the orders of the High Court in applications under Article 226, we could refuse to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the case requires to. But we are not so satisfied. We are of opinion that, having regard to the merits which have been concurrently found in favour of the respondents both by the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, and the High Court, we should decline to interfere." 26. In Bux Singh vs. Joint Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow and others; AIR 1966 All 156 , this Court observed "Where orders impugned are equitable and substantial Justice seems to have been done to the parties, the High Court would not be inclined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction merely on the ground that such orders are wrong in law." 27. In Om Prakash vs. U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allenganj, Allahabad and others, (1990) UPLBEC 983, the Court observed as under:- "It is well settled that a decision of an authority, even though without jurisdiction, may not be quashed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution if by the decision the substantial justice is done between the parties." 28. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order impugned dated 11.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.1-Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.