# Sudheer Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 842
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-10
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 18585 of 2023
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sudheer-kumar-jain-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50772
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 (now Section 104
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) - Section
9 All. Sudheer Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
843
166/167 - cannot be decided by the Additional
Collector. Only the Assistant Collector First Class
or Sub-Divisional Officer is competent to
adjudicate such matters. Orders passed by the
Additional Collector and revisional authority
without jurisdiction are liable to be set aside.

Case Law Discussed:

Rakesh Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2012 (116)
RD 69 (All.)

Key Legal Point:

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 104 - Declaration of agricultural land
transfer as void - Only Sub-Divisional Officer or
Assistant Collector First Class has jurisdiction -
Collector or Additional Collector has no authority
under Section 104 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Orders passed without jurisdiction are null and
void.

Held:
The Court held that the impugned orders
dated 17.02.2023 and 31.03.2023, passed
by the Additional Collector and Additional
Commissioner respectively, were without
jurisdiction, as the competent authority to
deal with such matters under Section 104
of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is the
Sub-Divisional Officer. Reliance was placed
on the decision in Rakesh Kumar Vs St. of
U.P. (2012), which clarified that the
functions
assigned
to
the
Assistant
Collector First Class under the Act cannot
be exercised by the Collector or Additional
Collector.
Accordingly,
both
impugned
orders were set aside and the matter was
remanded to the competent authority for fresh
adjudication.

## Text

842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order for holding elections under Section
25(2) of the Act or that he can directly
dislodge an elected body and, in the
opinion of the Court, if there were certain
allegations against the petitioners, the
Commission was competent to refer the
matter to the parent body and if the
allegation is against the parent body also,
the matter could be referred to the
Registrar. In such event, the Registrar
could have initiated the procedure under
Section 23 or 24 of the Act which are the
provisions for conducting audit on the basis
of production of financial documents by the
Society and also for mismanagement of the
affairs or of any breach of fiduciary or
other like obligations and consequential
investigation into the affairs of the society.
Admittedly, no proceedings under Sections
23 and 24 of the Act have been held in the
present case nor has any order been passed
under Section 25(1) of the Act. In absence
of any such action or proceedings, I do not
find it to be within jurisdiction of the
Deputy Registrar to directly dislodge the
Committee and direct holding of fresh
elections. Therefore, the order impugned
dated 09.09.2022 is found to be without
jurisdiction.

26. In so far as the order dated
05.04.2023 is concerned, I do not find any
provision in the Bye-laws under which
Administrator can be appointed. It appears
that considering the nature of allegations
against the petitioners, the Director has
proceeded
to
appoint
the
Divisional
Director, Meerut as Administrator. In the
order dated 05.04.2023 reference to Clause
38 of the Bye-laws has been made and even
after perusing the said clause, power to
appoint Administrator is not inferred.

27. For all the aforesaid reasons, the
impugned orders dated 09.09.2022 and
05.04.2023 do not sustain and are hereby
quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.

28. However, setting aside of the orders
impugned will not preclude the respondents
to hold proceedings under Sections 23 and 24
or any other proceedings under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 as may be warranted
in the facts of the case, keeping in view the
role of the parent body also and the fact as to
who actually is guilty of misappropriation
etc., if at all anybody is. This order shall also
not preclude the respondent Commission to
make a reference as provided under Clause
38 of the Bye-laws. It is expected that in case
any action is proposed under the said
provisions, fullest opportunity of hearing
shall be provided to the petitioners as well as
parent body, keeping in view the provisions
themselves and also the registered Bye-laws.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 842
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 18585 of 2023

Sudheer Kumar Jain ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, Sri Mridul
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Held -
Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 (now Section 104
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) - Section
9 All. Sudheer Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
843
166/167 - cannot be decided by the Additional
Collector. Only the Assistant Collector First Class
or Sub-Divisional Officer is competent to
adjudicate such matters. Orders passed by the
Additional Collector and revisional authority
without jurisdiction are liable to be set aside.

Case Law Discussed:

Rakesh Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2012 (116)
RD 69 (All.)

Key Legal Point:

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 104 - Declaration of agricultural land
transfer as void - Only Sub-Divisional Officer or
Assistant Collector First Class has jurisdiction -
Collector or Additional Collector has no authority
under Section 104 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Orders passed without jurisdiction are null and
void.

Held:
The Court held that the impugned orders
dated 17.02.2023 and 31.03.2023, passed
by the Additional Collector and Additional
Commissioner respectively, were without
jurisdiction, as the competent authority to
deal with such matters under Section 104
of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is the
Sub-Divisional Officer. Reliance was placed
on the decision in Rakesh Kumar Vs St. of
U.P. (2012), which clarified that the
functions
assigned
to
the
Assistant
Collector First Class under the Act cannot
be exercised by the Collector or Additional
Collector.
Accordingly,
both
impugned
orders were set aside and the matter was
remanded to the competent authority for fresh
adjudication.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Amendment application filed by
learned counsel for the petitioner is taken
on record.

In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment
Application No.Nil of 2023

1. Office is directed to allot number to
the instant application.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

3. In view of the averment made in
the affidavit filed in support of the
application, the application is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
is permitted to make necessary amendment
in the writ petition during course of the
day.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition is being heard and
disposed of finally with the consent of the
parties without inviting counter affidavit.

3. The instant petition has been filed
for the following reliefs:

"i. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
orders impugned passed in Case No.403 of
2023 dated 31.3.2023 (Annexure No.13) by
Additional Commissioner, Administration,
Second, Region & District- Saharanpur
and also the judgment and order dated
17.2.2023 in Case No.04669 of 2019
(Annexure No.12) passed by Upar-Zila
Adhikari Prasasan, Saharanpur.

ii. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents, validate the transaction /
sale
deed
no.4578
dated
24.5.1985
pertaining to plot situated at Khasra
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no.497M area 0.0195 Hectare (233-1/3)
out of area 2.048 at village- Dara-kot-tala
Swad Bairun Pargana, Tahsil & District-
Saharanpur, on payment of required fee.

iii. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature, which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

iv. Award the cost of the petition
to the petitioner."

4. Brief facts of the case are that Smt.
Arun Jain purchased the plot no.497M on
20.9.1982 / 2.5.1983. Petitioner purchased
the plot of Khasra No.497M area 0.0195
hectare out of 2.048 hectare from Smt.
Arun Jain. On 24.5.1983, one Israr Khan
son of Jameel Khan alleged to have
purchased the same plot no.497M area
0.0195 hectare out of area 2.048 hectare,
situated at Village- Dara-kot-tala Swad
Bairun
Pargana,
Tahsil
&
District-
Saharanpur on 1.12.2015 from Smt. Arun
Jain. The mutation proceeding was initiated
on the basis of registered sale deed
executed in respect to the plot in dispute
before the Tahsildar by Smt. Arun Jain,
petitoiner and Israr Khan, which were
registered
as
Case
Nos.T201709601012276,
T201709601012278 & T20170960101630.
Petitioner filed objection to the mutation
application filed by Israr Khan on 6.6.2017.
Naib Tahsildar vide order dated 24.8.2017
ordered to record the name of the petitioner
over the land in dispute in the proceeding
Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Israr Khan filed an application dated
8.9.2017
recalling
the
order
dated
24.8.2017, which was allowed vide order
dated
30.10.2017.
The
order
dated
30.10.2017 was passed without notice and
opportunity to the petitioner, accordingly,
petitioner filed an application on 7.12.2017
for recalling the order dated 30.10.2017.
Up-Ziladhikari, Saharanpur remanded the
matter back before the Tahsildar on the
ground
of
jurisdiction.
Additional
Collector, Saharanpur issued notice to Smt.
Arun Jain & Shri Rajneesh Tripathi in
respect
to
the
proceeding
pending
pertaining to sale deed dated 20.9.1982 /
2.5.1983, petitioner moved an application
in the pending proceeding that they may be
impleaded and opportunity be given to
contest
the
proceeding.
Additional
Collector, Saharanpur vide order dated
17.2.2023 rejected the objection filed by
the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the
order dated 17.2.2023 by way of revision
which was heard and rejected by the
Additional Commissioner vide order dated
31.3.2023, hence this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the impugned order is illegal
and
without
jurisdiction.
He
further
submitted that Additional Collector has no
jurisdiction to pass the order in the
proceeding under Section 166/167 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act now under Section
104 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He
further placed reliance upon the judgment
of this Court reported in 2012 (116) R.D.69
(Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. &
Others) decided on 28.2.2012, in which it
has been held that Assistant Collector First
Class is the competent authority to decide
any transaction of agricultural land void
under Section 166 of the Act, if it is in
contravention of Section 154 and 157-A of
the Act or as a matter of fact of any
provision of the Act. It has been further
held that Collector or Additional Collector
had no jurisdiction to pass the order in the
proceeding under Section 166/167 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act now under Section
104 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He
9 All. Sudheer Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
845
further submitted that this Court in the case
of Rakesh Kumar (supra) has considered the
provision of Section 3 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act as well as the provision of Section 14,
14-A & 15 of U.P. Land Revenue Act while
deciding the dispute regarding the jurisdiction
under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act now under Section 104 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006. He next submitted that in view
of the ratio of law laid down in Rakesh
(supra), the impugned order cannot be
sustained and liable to be set aside. He further
advanced argument even on the merit of the
issue also in order to demonstrate that the
impugned order vesting the land in State is
illegal.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel
for
the
State-respondents
submitted that the transaction is void as
provided under the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 but regarding the jurisdiction, Mr.
Abhishek Shukla, A.C.S.C. cannot dispute
the ratio which has been laid down in the
Rakesh Kumar (supra) by this Court. He
further submitted that on the point of
jurisdiction, the matter can be remanded
back before the competent authority to hear
and decide the dispute afresh.

7. I have considered the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

8. There is no dispute about the fact
that Additional Collector, Saharanpur has
passed the order vesting the land in dispute
in State Government in proceeding under
Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
now under Section 104 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006.

9. In order to appreciate the
controversy involved in the writ petition,
perusal of relevant portion of the impugned
judgment dated 17.2.2023 passed by
Additional Collector will be relevant,
which is as follows:

"आदेश पत्रि
न्यायाियैः अपर कििाकधिारी, प्रशासि
मण्ििैः सहारिपुर, ििपदैः सहारिपुर, तहसीिैः सहारिपुर
वाद संख्याैः- 04669/2019
िंप्यूटरीिृत वाद संख्याैः- D201909600004669
सरिाि बिाम अरूण ि ि

अंतर्गत धाराैः- 104/105, अकधकियिैः- उत्तर प्रदेश रािस्व
संकहत- 2006
कििा शासिीय अकधवक्ता (रािस्व) सहारिपुर एवं प्रकतवादीर्ण िे कवद्वाि
अकधवक्ता िी बहस िो सुिा र्या। पत्राविी िा सम्यि अविोिि किया
र्या। पत्राविी िे अविोिि एवं पररशीिि से कवकदत ह कि उप
कििाकधिारी, सदर, सहारिपुर िी िांचाख्या कदिांि 22/11/2019 में
स्पष्ट किया र्या ह कि ग्राम दरािोटतिा स्वाद ब रूि परर्िा व तहसीि व
कििा सहारिपुर में कस्थत ि०िं०497म क्षेत्रफि 2.048 हे० में से
0.0195 हे० िे पंिीिृत िेिपत्र कदिांि 20/09/198202/05/1983 िे किष्पादि में धारा 168ए उ०प्र०ि०कव० अकधकियम
िा उल्िंघि किया र्या ह । प्रकतवादीर्ण िी ओर से ऐसा िोई साक्ष्य
प्रस्तुत िही किया र्या ह किससे यह स्पष्ट होता हो कि प्रश्नर्त िेिपत्र
26/05/2015 िे किष्पादि में धारा 168ए उ०प्र० िमीदारी कविाश
अकधकियम िा उल्िंघि ि हुआ हो। िहां ति प्रकतवादी पक्ष िा िथि ह
कि धारा 104/105 उ०प्र० रािस्व संकहत िे अन्तर्गत िायगवाही
पोषणीय िहीं ह , उकचत िही ह । उक्त वाद उ०प्र० रािस्व, 2006 िे
प्रभावी होिे िे उपरािन्त प्रस्तुत होिे िे िारण धारा 231 उ०प्र० रािस्व
संकहता में कदये र्ये प्राकवधािों िे अिुरूप उ०प्र० रािस्व संकहता िी धारा
104/105 िे अन्तर्गत वाद िी िायगवाही िी र्ई ह । इस प्रिार प्रश्नर्त
अन्तरण शून्य ह । उ०प्र०ि०कव०अकधकियम व्यवस्था िी धारा 168ए िा
उल्िंघि होिे िे िारण यह भूकम अन्तरण िे कदिांि से सब भार आकद से
मुक्त होिर राज्य पक्ष में किकहत मािी िाएर्ी। अतैः वाद ग्रस्त भूकम
ि०िं०497म क्षेत्रफि 2.048 हे० में से 0.0195 हे० िे पंिीिृत
िेिपत्र कदिांि 20/09/1982-02/05/1983 िे किष्पादि से
कवपक्षीर्ण िा िाम िाररि िर सम्पकत्त राज्य सरिार दिग किया िािर
राज्य सरिार िे पक्ष में िब्िा कदया िािा कवकधिुिूि एवं न्यायोकचत ह ।
आदेश

उपयुगक्त कववेचिा िे आधार पर भूकम 497में क्षेत्रफि 2.048हे०
में से 0.0195हे० कस्थत ग्राम दरािोटतिा स्वाद ब रूि परर्िा व तहसीि
व कििा सहारिपुर से कवपक्षीर्ण िे िाम िी प्रकवकष्ट िो किरस्त िरते हुए
इस भूकम िो राज्य सरिार िे िाम दिग किया िाए तथा भूकम िा राज्य
सरिार िे पक्ष में दिि प्राप् किया िाए। आदेश िी प्रकतकिकप उप
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
कििाकधिारी, ििुि, सहारिपुर िो अिुपािि हेतु प्रेकषत िी िाए।
पत्राविी वाद आपूकतग अकभिेिार्ार में संकचत िी िाए।
कदिांिैः- फरवरी,17,2023

िॉ०अचगिा कद्ववेदी

अपर ििेक्टर (प्रशासि)

सहारिपुर"

10. Paragraph Nos.21 to 25 of the
judgment rendered in Rakesh Kumar
(supra) will be relevant for perusal, which
is as under:

"21. A plain and simple reading
of Section 3(4) of the Act and Sections 14,
14-A and 15 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act
makes it clear that the Collector includes
Additional Collector as well as Assistant
Collector and is authorised to discharge
the powers and duties conferred upon him
under the Act or in any other law in force.
The aforesaid Acts do not confer upon the
Collector
the
power
to
declare
a
transaction to be void under Section 166 of
the Act being violative of Section 154 or
157-A of the Act. Such power is vested only
in the Assistant Collector First Class who
may be authorised by the State Government
to discharge all or any of the functions of
the Collector but converse to it is not
permitted.
The
duties
and
functions
assigned therein to the Assistant Collector
First Class under law are not to be
discharged by the Collector even though he
may be the controlling authority of the
Assistant Collectors First Class. He is not
authorised to take over the functions
assigned to the Assistant Collectors. Thus,
Collector is not supposed to discharge the
functions specifically assigned to the
Assistant Collectors under the above two
Acts including that of declaring a transfer
to be void.

22. Apart from the above the
initial order which was challenged in
appeal before the Additional Commissioner
was passed by the Assistant Collector First
Class and, therefore, also on the order
being set-aside in appeal, the matter ought
to have been remanded to the Assistant
Collector First Class.

23. Accordingly, I answer the
question by holding that the Assistant
Collector First Class is the competent
authority to declare any transaction of
agricultural land void under Section 166
of the Act, if it is in contravention of
Section 154 and 157-A of the Act or as a
matter of fact,of any other provision of the
Act.

24. In such a situation, the
Additional Commissioner committed an
error of law in remanding the matter to the
Collector.

25.
The
writ
petition
is
accordingly allowed and the order of the
Additional Commissioner dated 27.8.2010
is modified to the extent that the matter
stands remanded to the Assistant Collector
First Class in place of the Collector as
directed."

11. Perusal of Rule 103 of the U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016 will be also
relevant for perusal, which is as under:

"(1) If a bhumidhar or an asami
has transferred his interest in any holding
or part thereof which is void under section
104, the Lekhpal shall promptly submit a
report
to
the
Sub-Divisional
Officer
containing particulars specified in rule
97(1).
9 All. Sudheer Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
847

(2) On receipt of the report of the
Lekhpal
under
sub-rule
(1),
or
on
information received otherwise, the SubDivisional Officer shall call upon the
parties to the transfer to show cause, why
action under section 104 read with section
105 should not be taken in respect of the
land in question.

(3) After hearing the parties and
making
such
inquiries
as
may
be
considered
necessary,
if
the
Sub-
Divisional Officer is satisfied that the
transfer in question is void under section
104, he shall declare that-

(a) the subject matter of such
transfer shall vest in the State Government;

(b) the trees, crops, well and
other improvements existing on the holding
or part shall vest in the State Government
free from all encumbrances; and

(c) the interests of the transferor
as well as of the transferee stood
extinguished, from the date of such
transfer.

(4) The Sub-Divisional Officer
shall direct that the revenue records should
be corrected accordingly and where the
transfer in contravention of the provisions
of the Code relates to a part of the holding,
he shall also fix land revenue in respect of
the part left with the transferor in
accordance with Chapter XI of these rules.

(5) Every order of the SubDivisional Officer under this rule shall be
endorsed to the Samiti for necessary action.

(6) Where any property referred to
in section 105 has vested in the State
Government, the Collector may evict any
person in unauthorised occupation of such
property and deliver possession thereof to the
Gram Panchayat concerned."

12. Rule 103 of U.P. Revenue Code
Rules 2016, as quoted above as well as ratio
of law laid down in Rakesh Kumar (supra),
clearly provides that Sub-Divisional Officer
shall pass the order in the proceeding under
Rule 104 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016,
issue relating to vesting of the land in the
State-Government. Admittedly, in the instant
matter, the order impugned dated 17.2.2023
vesting the land in the State / Goan Sabha in
the proceeding under Section 166/167 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act now under Section 104
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed
by the Additional Collector, which cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.

13. Revisional Court has also failed to
consider the point of jurisdiction, as such,
revisional order also suffers from error of
law.

14. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances, the impugned orders dated
31.3.2023
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner,
Administration,
Second,
Region & District- Saharnpur and order dated
17.2.2023 passed by Uppar-Zila Adhikari
Prasasan, Saharanpur cannot be sustained and
are liable to be set aside and the same are
hereby set aside.

15. The writ petition is allowed in
part. The matter is remitted back for fresh
decision of Case No.04669 of 2019,
Computerized
Case
No.D201909600004669 by the competent
authority in the light of the observation
made in the body of the judgment after
affording proper opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner as well as other parties to the
dispute in accordance with law.
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 848
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 18937 of 2023

Vipin Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Arun
Kumar
Srivastava,
Priyanka
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava

Held:
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code,1908 -
Section 92 - Where a civil suit under Section
92 CPC is pending before the competent court
regarding a public charitable trust, any direction
for implementation of a prior summary order
under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act
is impermissible. Relief sought by the petitioner
with respect to administration and management
of a religious temple must be pursued before
the civil court in terms of Section 92 CPC.
Representation seeking implementation of such
Tahsildar's order during pendency of the civil
suit is not legally sustainable.

Key Words:

Public Trust - Religious Temple - Section 92
CPC - Summary Proceedings - Tahsildar's Order
- Civil Court Jurisdiction - Mandamus -
Management of Temple - Mutation

JUDGMENT:
(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act,1901 -
Section 92 - Petition seeking mandamus to
implement Tahsildar's order dated 09.06.1993
and to direct eviction of unauthorized occupants
from temple property was dismissed in view of
pending civil suit under Section 92 CPC. The
Court observed that during pendency of such
suit,
all
issues
concerning
administration,
management, and possession of trust property
must be raised before the civil court itself.
Reliance on mutation proceedings under Section
34
U.P.
Land
Revenue
Act
for
such
implementation was held impermissible.

Writ Petition Dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents
and Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava,
learned counsel for the respondent no.4-
Gaon Sabha.

2. The instant petition has been filed
for the following reliefs:

"i. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the District Magistrate, Firozabad to take
appropriate action upon the representation
dated 1.4.2023.

ii. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondent authorities to ensure the
compliance of the order dated 9.6.1993
passed by the Tahsildar in Case No.213 /90
of 1993 (Vijay Pral Vs. Maya Devi) under
Section 34 of Land Revenue Act and hand
over the management and control of temple
Thakur Ramchandraji Maharaj Virajman
Mandir, Pachokhara, Tahsil- Tundala,
District- Firozabad.

iii. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding