Abhinava Upadhya, J.:— Heard Shri Bairister Singh for the petitioner and Shri Manvendra Nath Singh for the respondent No. 4. Learned Standing Counsel represents the State-respondents.
2. Petitioner had initially initiated proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short ‘the Act’) upon which a report was called by the Tehsildar, but the said application of the petitioner was rejected as it was held that the petitioner can file an application under Section 33/39 of the Act.
3. Such an order was passed upon the application of the petitioner by the authority concerned. The respondents then filed a restoration application which restoration application was rejected. Thereafter, a second restoration application has been filed and the second restoration application has been allowed directing the matter be restored to its original number and be decided after considering the claim of the parties. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second restoration application was not maintainable and, therefore, the petitioner challenged the order in revision and the revision has also been rejected, hence this writ petition.
4. At this juncture I am not inclined to interfere in the matter as the matter has been restored to be heard again. Whatever the objection the petitioner has with regard to locus of the respondents and other such stand, the same can be taken in the proceedings which are yet to be concluded. However, learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Act pending before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raja Talab, Varanasi be decided expeditiously.
5. The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the Act pending before respondent No. 2 be concluded in accordance with law after considering the claim of the petitioner as well as the objections of the respondents preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before it.