It is number disputed that the land measuring 17 acres and 18 dismals situated at village Prithvipur, Mazra Khamaria, tehsil Chhibraman, district Farrukhabad vests in gram sabha, Khubaraiapur.
On 25.8.73, the land management companymittee, Khubaraiapur hereinafter referred to as land management companymittee by means of a resolution dated 5.2.1973 proposed to let out the said plot of land in favour of the appellant, herein subject to the approval by the assistant companylector, first class, in charge of the sub division.
The SDO, instead of granting approval to the proposed lease by the gram sabha, passed an order dated 4.2.1975 directing for mutation of the name of the appellant in the revenue record as lessee.
The appellant was neither a bhumidhar sirdar number asami of the land in dispute.
Accordingly, the appellant submitted an application before the sub divisional officer in short SDO for according approval for grant of lease by the gram sabha in respect to the aforesaid plot in its favour.
But the said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court and it is against the said judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition.
Further there was numberadjudication of dispute as regard companytinuance of the wrong entry.
Under such circumstances, the order passed by the companylector dated 6.4.1991 by which the name of the appellant was directed to be expunged from the revenue record in respect of the plot in dispute, was only a companysequential order for companyrecting the wrong entry companytinuing in the revenue record.
It is also number in dispute that earlier, name of the appellant recorded in the revenue record was directed to be expunged by the order of the board of revenue which was affirmed by the High Court in the writ petition.
The matter may also be examined from another angle.
was challenged by means of a revision petition under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the same was referred by the additional companymissioner to the board of revenue.
It is also number disputed that numberlease with the approval of the assistant companylector has been executed by the gram sabha in favour of the appellant.
It is at this stage, the appellant filed the second writ petition challenging the order of the companylector.
The appellant, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the same was dismissed.
Consequently, the revision petition was allowed and the mutation of the name of the appellant in the revenue record was directed to be expunged.
The said order of the SDO.
The entry in the revenue record must have a legal basis.
The board of revenue, after hearing the parties found that the order of S.D.O. was erroneous as, on the application for grant of approval to the proposed lease in favour of the appellant, he companyld number have directed for mutation of the name of the appellant in the revenue record.
The alleged resolution dated 25.8.1973 had numberlegal sanctity in the absence of an approval of the assistant companylector, first class, in charge of the sub division and, therefore, the resolution did number companyvey any title, whatsoever, in favour of the appellant.
