JUDGMENT : (Saurabh Lavania, J.) 1. Heard Sri A.Z. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/Gaon Sabha concerned. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.12.2023, as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 & 12 to this petition. 3. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that the petitioner instituted a suit under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), registered as Case No. 10483/2019, Computerized Case No. T201910330110483 (Gagan Mishra vs. Gaon Sabha), with regard to Gata No. 843M area 0.5690 Hectare situated at Village-Nanakganj Grant, Pargana-Gopamau, Tehsil and District-Hardoi in the month of October, 2019. 4. The respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District-Hardoi decided the case in favour of petitioner on 18.02.2020. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.02.2020 on reproduction reads as under:- ^^[krkSuh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd [krkSuh esa i{kksa ds ;Fkksfpr va'k jdck fofuf'pr gSA bl dkj.k izkjfEHkd fMdzh ikfjr fd;s tkus dh vko';drk ugha gSA pwafd orZeku fof/k O;oLFkk ds vUrxZr d`"kd Hkwfe;ksa ds va'k fu/kkZj.k dh dk;Zokgh xfreku gSA ,slh n'kk esa dqjkZQkV dh dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA rn~uqlkj vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk mi;qDr gSA vkns'k vr% vkns'k fd;k tkrk gS fd xzke ukuxdxat xzUV ijxuk xksikeÅ rglhy o ftyk gjnksbZ dh [krkSuh lu~ 1424&1429Q0 ds [kkrk la0&602 dh xkVk la0&843fe0@0-4390 gs0 oknh ds uke o 843 fe0@0-190 gs0 lM+d ds uke rFkk 843fe0@0-130 gs0 taxy U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsaA vkns'k dh izfr rglhynkj lnj dks vuqikyukFkZ Hksth tk;sA^^ 5. As on the spot, actual partition was not carried out by the revenue official concerned in terms of the order dated 18.02.2020, the petitioner by means of an application registered as Case No. EA/299/2022/Hardoi, Computerized Case No. R2022103300299 (Gagan Mishra vs. Gaon Sabha) approached the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow seeking direction for expeditious disposal of the case before the respondent No. 3, as provided under para 494 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual. This case was disposed of by the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow vide order dated 10.05.2022. This case was disposed of by the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow vide order dated 10.05.2022. A perusal of order dated 10.05.2022 indicates that the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow directed the respondent No. 3 to conclude the proceedings pending before it within the period of four months. The order dated 10.05.2022 on reproduction reads as under:- ^^vkns'k fopkjk/khu izkFkZuk&i= fu;e 494 m0iz0 jktLo U;k;ky; fu;e laxzg ¼la'kks/ku½ fu;ekoyh] 2016 ds vUrxZr voj U;k;ky;@mi ftykf/kdkjh&lnj] tuin&gjnksbZ U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu okn la[;k Vh&201910330110483] ¼xxu feJk cuke xkao lHkk ukudxat xazV½ vUrxZr /kkjk&116] m0iz0 jktLo lafgrk&2006 ds 'kh?kz fuLrkj.k djus gsrq] funsZ'k fn;s tkus fo"k;d] ifj"kn esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA 2& iqdkj djk;h x;hA izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk] Jh ,l0ih0 flag rFkk foi{kh dh vksj ls fo}ku LFkkbZ vf/koDrk] Jh izrki flag mifLFkr gq;sA nksuksa i{kksa ds vf/koDrkvksa }kjk iz'uxr okn ds 'kh?kz fuLrkj.k gsrq v/khuLFk jktLo U;k;ky; dks funsZ'k fuxZr djus gsrq lgefr O;Dr dh x;hA 3& eSus nksuks i{kksa ds vf/koDrkvksa dks lquk rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa dk lE;d~ ifj'khyu fd;k o ik;k fd mi ftykf/kdkjh&lnj] tuin&gjnksbZ U;k;ky; dks] muds U;k;ky; esa izpfyr okn la[;k Vh&201910330110483] ¼xxu feJk cuke xkao rFkk ukudxat xzaV½ ds 'kh?kz fuLrkj.k gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k tkuk fof/k lEer o vko';d gSA 4& mijksDr izLrj&2 o 3 ds dze esa] mi ftykf/kdkjh& lnj] tuin& gjnksbZ dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns'k dh izekf.kr izfr voj@v/khuLFk jktLo U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;s tkus ds i'pkr vf/kdre 04 ekg esa] mHk;i{kksa dks uSlfxZd U;k; fl)kUr ds vuqlkj i;kZIr lk{; o lquokbZ dk volj iznku djrs gq;s] xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij] okn la[;k Vh&201910330110483 esa fu.kZ; ikfjr djsaA 5& mi ftykf/kdkjh&lnj] tuin&gjnksbZ] mijksDr izLrj&4 esa fn;s funs'kksa dk ikyu djrs le;] muds le{k yfEcr@iqjkus oknksa dh la[;k o bl okn&fo'ks"k ds 'kh?kz fuLrkj.k dh rqyukRed vko';drk Hkh laKku esa j[ksaxsA lkFk gh mi ftykf/kdkjh&lnj] tuin&gjnksbZ U;k;ky; esa rSukr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh U;kf;d lquokbZ&izfdzk nkSjku] nksuksa i{kksa ds vkpj.k ¼lg;ksx ,oa@vFkok foyEc fo"k;d½ ij izR;sd lquokbZ dh frfFk esa] fVIi.kh djus gsrq Lora= gSa 6& mijksDr izLrj&4 o 5 esa fn;s x;s funsZ'k ds dze es izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj djrs gq, fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh i=koyh nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA^^ 6. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 06.12.2023 passed in Case No. 10483/2019, Computerized Case No. T201910330110483 (Gagan Mishra vs. Gaon Sabha), the respondent No. 3 set-aside the earlier final order dated 18.02.2020. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 06.12.2023 passed in Case No. 10483/2019, Computerized Case No. T201910330110483 (Gagan Mishra vs. Gaon Sabha), the respondent No. 3 set-aside the earlier final order dated 18.02.2020. The reason of passing the order dated 06.12.2023 is to the effect that the suit instituted under Section 116 of the Code of 2006 itself was not maintainable. The relevant observations made by the respondent No. 3 in the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 on reproduction reads as under:- ^^oknhx.k ds vf/koDrk ds rdksZa dks lquus o i=koyh dk Hkyh izdkj vuq'khyu djus ds mijkUr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd oknh }kjk ftl Hkw[k.M ds ckor foHkktu dh ekax dh xbZ gS og la?kVd uEcj gS rFkk ,d ls vf/kd [kkrksa ij fe0 ds :i esa vafdr gSaA fetqeyk uEcjksa dk cVokjk djuk bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ls ijs gSA oknh ;fn pkgs rks l{ke U;k;ky; esa okn ;ksftr dj vuqrks"k izkIr dj ldrk gSA oknh }kjk izLrqr okn la?kVd uEcj gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% vkns'k fd;k tkrk gS fd xzke ukuxdxat xzUV ijxuk xksikeÅ rglhy o ftyk gjnksbZ dh [krkSuh lu~ 1424&1429 Q0 ds [kkrk la&602 dh xkVk la0&843 fe0 ds lEcU/k esa iwoZ ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 18-02-2020 fujLr dh tkrh gSA fetqeyk uEcjksa dk cVokjk djuk bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ls ijs gksus ds dkj.k okn fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA oknh ;fn pkgs rks l{ke U;k;ky; esa okn ;ksftr dj vuqrks"k izkIr dj ldrk gSA i=koyh ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh nkf[ky nQrj gksA^^ 7. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 06.12.2023. 8. Impeaching the impugned order dated 06.12.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 3 under the Scheme of Code of 2006 is not empowered to review/recall its final order dated 18.02.2020, as such, the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 is without jurisdiction and also that the same has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and being so, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 9. 9. Opposing the present petition, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha concerned stated that the suit preferred by the petitioner under Section 116 of the Code of 2006 itself was not maintainable, as such, the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 calls for no interference by this Court. 10. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record. 11. Upon due consideration of the observations made by the respondent No. 3 in the impugned order dated 06.12.2023, the question before this Court is whether with regard to 'Minzumla Gata' solely recorded in the name of petitioner, a suit for partition under Section 116 of the Code of 2006 would be maintainable or not. 12. For coming to conclusion, it would be appropriate to refer relevant provisions of the Code of 2006 i.e. Section 4(29), Section 30 and Section 116 of the Code of 2006, which is extracted hereunder:- "Section 4(29). "Minjumla number" means a shajra number denoting a component part of a field which has theoretically been partitioned but physically has not been partitioned. Section 30. Maintenance of Map and Field Book.-(1) The Collector shall maintain, in the manner prescribed, a map and a field book (khasra) for each such village and shall cause to be recorded therein, annually, or at such longer intervals as may be prescribed, all changes in the boundaries of the village or survey numbers, and shall also cause to be corrected, any errors or omissions which are, from time to time, detected in such map or field book (khasra). (2) The minjumla number shall be divided physically in the manner prescribed and revenue records including map and khasra shall be corrected accordingly. Section 116. Suit for division of holding.-(1) A Bhumidhar may sue for the division of the holding of which he is a co-sharer. (2) In every such suit, the Court may also divide the trees, wells and other improvements existing on such holding but where such division is not possible, the trees, wells and other improvements aforesaid and valuation thereof shall be divided and adjusted in the manner prescribed. (3) One suit may be instituted for the division of more holdings than one where all the parties to the suit other than the Gram Panchayat are, jointly interested in each of the holdings. (3) One suit may be instituted for the division of more holdings than one where all the parties to the suit other than the Gram Panchayat are, jointly interested in each of the holdings. (4) To every suit under this section, the Gram Panchayat concerned shall be made a party." 13. From a conjoint reading of above quoted provision including the language couched under Section 116 of the Code of 2006, it is apparent that a suit for division of holdings can be instituted by a "co-sharer". 14. In the instant case, the plot/land in issue i.e. Gata No. 843M area 0.4390 hectare is recorded in the name of the petitioner, Gata No. 843M area 0.1300 hectare is recorded as 'Jungle Dhak' and Gata No. 843M are 0.1900 hectare is recorded as 'Road'. 15. Thus, the suit itself was not maintainable in view of the statutory provision of the Code of 2006, quoted above. 16. Taking note of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that no interference is required in the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 even on the ground that the authority concerned/respondent No. 3 has no power to review its final order. It is for the reason that in case this Court interferes in the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 then the order dated 18.02.2020 and the proceedings would again revive, which itself was not maintainable. In other words, the effect of interference in the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 would be revival of order dated 18.02.2020, which was not legal being passed in a suit which itself was not maintainable. 17. It is settled principle of law that the writ court should not set-aside the order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive another illegal order, (Vide: Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P AIR 1966 SC 828 , Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 SC 3609 , Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2000 SC 2976 , Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 2889 and State of Uttaranchal v. Ajit Singh Bhola, 2004 6 SCC 800 ). 18. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 06.12.2023. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 06.12.2023. This petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is however at liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances, as observed in the impugned order dated 06.12.2023.