Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99814 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 18142 of 2017 Petitioner :- Dharam Raj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijendra Kumar Srivastav,Aqeel Ahmad,Kunwar Rajan,Manoj Yadav,Randhir Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard Shri Aqeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 7.11.2001 passed by the Collector, Azamgarh and the one dated 31.5.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a complaint was filed by the respondent no. 5 before the Collector against Ram Dular and others under Section 33/39/225 of the Land Revenue Act on the ground that the disputed land was recorded in the name of the Forest Department for the Fasli years 1377 to 1379. After calling for a report from the Tehsil Authorities, the impugned order dated 7.11.2001 was passed directing expunging the name of the petitioner and other villagers from the disputed Khatas. It is stated that the order dated 7.11.2001 passed by the respondent no. 3 is without issuing any notice and without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further stated that prior to the impugned order dated 7.11.2001 passed by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner and his brothers had filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Azamgarh which was decreed by the Sub- Divisional Officer on 16.6.1980. Against that order, one Teerath Raj filed restoration application which was dismissed by an order dated 29.4.1998. Against that order, a fresh restoration application was filed which was also dismissed on 10.6.2002. The revision filed against this order dated 10.6.2002 was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh on 8.4.2006. 4. It has not been mentioned in the writ petition whether the order dated 8.6.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh was challenged or whether it has become final. 5. It is further stated that against the ex-parte order dated 7.11.2001, the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent no. 2 on 8.1.2002 which was dismissed on 31.5.2016 by a non- speaking order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner pursuant to which the impugned order dated 7.11.2001 was passed, could not have taken to its conclusion in view of the judgement in the suit filed by the petitioner under Section 229B of the Act, 1950. 6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 7.11.2001 passed by the Collector, Azamgarh reveals that nobody appeared for the respondents when the matter was taken up. The Collector referred to the report of the record keeper which reflected that in all the Khatauni pertaining to 1362 Fasli, Khata No. 172 was recorded as forest, on which, fraudulently the name of the opposite parties were recorded. It was noticed that in the Khatauni for the Fasli years 1377 to 1379 the aforesaid plots of land were registered as forest and it was only for the first time in the years 1380 to 1382 Fasli, the names of the opposite parties were recorded in the revenue records; whereas as per the report of the record keeper none of the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar that were referred in the case were available on record. The Collector also referred to the fact that there is no record of any order of the Sub- Divisional Officer, whereby, the opposite parties were declared as 'Sirdar'. 7. The Board of Revenue in its order dated 31.5.2016 passed on the revision filed by the petitioner has noted the long absence of the revisionist and his counsel and therefore, the revision was dismissed after noting that the revision had no legality on merit. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph no. 7 of the revision filed by him before the Board in which it is mentioned that the complainant had filed an objection before the consolidation Authority which was dismissed, against which, an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was also dismissed and, thereafter, a revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948, which is pending. 9. The proceedings before the Collector were admittedly under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act which are summary in nature. No title can enure to a private party on the basis of such summary proceedings. For setting up a claim, the affected party has the option to file a suit for declaration which admittedly has been done by the petitioner in which an order is stated to have been passed by the Additional Collector, Azamgarh. There is no material on record to demonstrate whether that order has become final or not. Further, when it is the case of the petitioner that the consolidation proceedings in respect of the plots of the petitioner were underway then it was for the petitioner to have staked his claim before the consolidation Authorities, but there is no material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner had taken any such step. 10. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for in this writ petition in exercise of writ jurisdiction and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.5.2023 A. V. Singh (Jayant Banerji, J.) Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad