1. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 08.08.2022 issued by the respondent no.1 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the official respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property in dispute, so long as the matter is not finally decided by this Hon'ble Court regarding impact of the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue. (iii) Issue a further writ order in the nature of mandamus commanding the official respondents not to take any coercive measures again the petitioner on the strength of the order passed by Tehsildar dated 27.01.2022 and 07.03.2022 since the same have already been set aside by the Board of Revenue in exercise of the powers under 210 of the Revenue Code, 2006 and during existence of the order of the Board of Revenue, which is still intact."

2. In order to appreciate the contentions of counsel for the respective parties, certain facts leading upto this petition needs to be noticed first.

3. (i) The dispute in question relates to land measuring 4 bigha 16 biswa comprising of old Khasra Plot No.467 N, 508N, 509N and 544 N and the new plot number after consolidation are 1034, 1035, 1039, 1040 and 1175 situate in village Nanakganj Grant, Pargana Gopamau, Tehsil Sadar, District Hardoi.

(ii) A resolution was passed by the Gaon Sabha concerned on 12.01.1987 for resumption of land to be given to the private respondent no.4 trust for the purpose of construction of a charitable hospital. The then District Magistrate issued an order on 30.01.1987 under Section 117(6) of the U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act resuming the land in question. The purpose for which the land was resumed was mentioned in the schedule appended to the said order dated 30.01.1987 which indicated that it was for the Gyan Yog Charitable Trust (Chairman R. S. Agarwal, Retired IAS) and the possession was handed over to the trust on 02.02.1987 and the possession certificate was signed by the Tehsil Authorities and trustees. The land in question was recorded under Category 5(iii)(2) and described as "Jangal Dhak" in the Khatauni of 1333 fasli and 1356 fasli. It is only after the completion of consolidation operation in the village concerned that the Khatauni was prepared and the land in question was described under Category (6)(ii).

(iii) On 19.06.2010, the respondent no.4 trust executed a sale deed in respect of Khasra Plot No.1175 in favour of the Yash Vardhan Agarwal and Surya Vardhan Agarwal sons of Sanjeev Agarwal. Again on 01.07.2010, the private respondent no.4 trust executed another sale deed transferring an area of 1057.72 sq. of land in favour of Yash Vardhan Agarwal and Pradeep Kumar Agarwl. It is on the basis of these two sale deed that the name of the transferee came to be mutated and incorporated in the Khatauni.

(iv) A Public Interest Litigation No.7472 (PIL) of 2021 (Sharad Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & others) came to be filed before this Court wherein the questions before the Court for consideration were formulated as evident from paragraph-21 of the judgment rendered by the Court in the said P.I.L. on 5th of July, 2022 and for the ease of reference, is being reproduced herein after:-

"(i) Whether the present petition raises the question of public importance involving misuse of authority and powers vested in the then District Magistrate and therefore the Court would be justified in looking in the matter even if its assumed that the petitioner has personal grudge against the Concept Cars Limited and its Directors etc.

(ii) Whether the order dated 30.01.1987 passed by the then District Magistrate, Hardoi resuming the Gram Sabha land recorded as 'Jangal Dha', a public utility land for a private trust created by late Radhey Shyam Agarwa, a retired IAS officer was void ab initio

(iii) Whether the order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi holding the order dated 30.01.1987 to be void ab initio and canceling the said order and restoring the land back to the Gram Sabha, is just and proper order

(iv) Whether the land recorded as 'Jangal Dhak' in revenue record under Para A-124 of the U.P. Land Records Manual, which is a public utility land, can be offered in exchange with some other land"

(v) It will be relevant to notice that upon initiation of the proceedings before this Court in the PIL as mentioned above, a three members committee comprising of the SDO, Sadar, Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hardoi and the City Magistrate, Hardoi submitted a report to the District Magistrate, Hardoi. The said report was in pursuance of the order dated 18.03.2021 passed in PIL as mentioned above. As per the Inquiry Report, the resumption of land dated 30.01.1987 was not in accordance with law. The Inquiry Committee also noticed that the sale deed executed by the Trust in favour of the transferees was also illegal.

(vi) In the aforesaid backdrop, the District Magistrate on 04.06.2021 passed an order taking note of the report submitted and the resumption order dated 30.01.1987 was rescinded as being without jurisdiction and void ab initio. It was further ordered that the land would vest in the Gaon Sabha concerned and Tehsildar was required to initiate proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for ensuring the eviction of the occupants from the land in question. (vii) The said order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi as referred hereinabove came to be challenged by the petitioner-company before the Board of Revenue in a revision. The revision came to be dismissed on the ground that the appellant company did not have the locus to challenge the order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the District Magistrate.

(vii) The said order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi as referred hereinabove came to be challenged by the petitioner-company before the Board of Revenue in a revision. The revision came to be dismissed on the ground that the appellant company did not have the locus to challenge the order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the District Magistrate.

However, while dismissing the said revision as not maintainable, the Board of Revenue observed that the petitionercompany (revisionist before the Board of Revenue) may, if so advised, may seek impleadment in the revision which was filed by the private respondent no. 4-Trust against the order dated 04.06.2021 which was pending.

The Board of Revenue also observed that it was open for the present petitioner to move an application before the Sub Divisional Officer concerned for exchange of land in question with the land belonging to the petitioner-company. It was further noticed that in case if the Sub Divisional Officer gets possession of any other land belonging to the petitioner-company in exchange and in lieu of the land comprising of Gata No. 1175, the same would be subject to the final outcome of the revision which was pending before the Board of Revenue and was filed by the Trust against the order dated 04.06.2021.

(viii) Further, a notice under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was issued to Sanjeev Agarwal for eviction from the land in question which further culminated in the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and an order dated 27.01.2022 came to be passed whereby Sanjeev Agarwal-respondent no. 5 was ordered to be evicted and even damages to the tune of Rs.3,54,60,000 (Thirty five crore four lakh sixty thousand) along with execution charges of Rs. 12,800/- was also imposed. The said order dated 27.01.2022 was made subject to the final outcome of the revision filed by the Trust and pending before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 04.06.2021.

(ix) The petitioner-company moved an application for setting aside the order of eviction dated 27.01.2022 and the said application was rejected by the Tehsildar concerned on 07.03.2022.

(x) The petitioner-company initially preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing No. 1860 (Writ-C) of 2022 which was withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate Forum. Thereafter the petitioner-company filed a revision before the Board of Revenue wherein the order dated 07.03.2022 whereby the application for recall of the order dated 27.01.2022 was rejected and it also challenged the order dated 27.01.2022 and this revision was registered as Revision No. 1072 of 2022. The said revision was connected along with the revision which had been filed by the private respondent no. 4-Trust bearing No. 1146 of 2021. Significantly, another revision bearing No. 511 of 2022 was filed by one of the Trustees of respondent no. 4-Trust namely Vinay Kant Pathak impugning the order dated 04.06.2021 and 31.01.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi. The order dated 31.01.2022 was an order by which the application for recall moved by the said Trustee for recalling of the order dated 04.06.2021 had been rejected.

(xi) In the aforesaid fashion, three revisions bearing No. 1072 of 2022 filed by the petitioner-company, Revision No. 1146 of 2021 filed by the Trust and the Revision No. 511 of 2022 filed by one of the trustees came to be consolidated, heard and decided together by a common judgment dated 20.06.2022.

(xii) The Board of Revenue while deciding the aforesaid three revisions by means of its decision dated 20.06.2022 set aside the order dated 04.06.2022 and 31.01.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi. It further substituted its own finding and following directions were issued:-

(a) The land in question shall vests with the Gram Sabha concerned

(b) The Trust or any other Institution being run by the Trust shall removed its possession from the land in question and hand over the possession to the State Government before the 1st of September, 2022 except the land comprising of Khasra Plot No. 1175

(c) It further directed the recovery of an amount of two times. The land revenue as annual rent from the Trust in respect of the land in question for the period commencing from 02.08.1987 and ending on 01.09.2022.

(d) In case if the Trust did not remove his occupation by the first of September, 2022, proceedings were to be initiated against the under the relevant provisions and necessary damages may also be recovered post 1st September, 2022 till actual possession is received

(e) It further directed that since the issue regarding the exchange of Plot No. 1175 was pending before the State Government, hence, subject to the outcome of the requisite orders to be passed on the application for exchange the petitionercompany was directed not to change the nature of land comprising Khasra Plot No. 1175 and status-quo was to be maintained by the parties.

(xiii) It will be relevant to notice that while the aforesaid decision was rendered by the Board of Revenue on 20.06.2022, the PIL pending before this Court bearing No. 7472 of 2021 had been reserved after its hearing was concluded in the month of May, 2022 and the judgment was delivered on 05th of July, 2022.

(xiv) This Court in PIL No. 7472 of 2021 after hearing the parties had made the following observations and recorded certain findings and the relevant portion of the said judgment dated 5th July, 2022 is being reproduced hereinafter for ease of reference:

"16. This Court is of the considered view that the Board of Revenue has incorrectly held that the land in Gata No.1175 was not recorded as public utility land' though the same was recorded as Jangal Dhak' and was a public utility land as per the provisions of Para A-124 of the U.P. Land Records Manual. The Board of Revenue thus, directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Hardoi to make inspection of the lands, which are being offered by the revisionist/Concept Cars Limited in exchange of the land in Gata No.1175, and take possession of the land offered by the revisionist in exchange of the land in Gata No.1175 of the area, which would be 10% more than the area of Gata No.1175. It has been further held that the said order of exchange would be subject to the final outcome of Revision No.1146 of 2021 filed by the Trust. It has been ordered that that the revisionist would file an affidavit before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and will undertake that in case the order dated 4.6.2021 is affirmed, the revisionist should not claim any right in respect of the land being offered in exchange of the land in Gata No.1175, and in future if it was found that the land offered in exchange of land in Gata No.1175 had any defect of ownership, then the revisionist would be liable to compensate for the loss, if any. It has been ordered that the revisionist would file the undertaking along with application within a period of two weeks before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the SubDivisional Magistrate has been directed to make inspection of the land in Gata Nos.1143, 1167 Cha and 846, which are being offered in exchange and then out of the three gatas, the most valuable land should be accepted in exchange. After taking possession of the said land, the possession should be handed over to the Gram Sabha. It has been further directed that all this should be completed within a period of six weeks. It has been ordered that for a period of two months or from the date of taking possession of the land offered in exchange of Gata No.1175, status-quo in respect of the possession of Gata No.1175 shall be maintained

17. Thus, on one hand the Board of Revenue held that the revision on behalf of the Manager of Concept Cars Limited or by the Concept Cars Limited itself was not maintainable, and on the other hand, it allowed the prayer of the revisionist/Manager of the Concept Cars Limited for exchange of the land. This Court finds the approach of the Board of Revenue wholly illegal, unjustified and against the judicial propriety inasmuch as when the High Court was in seisen of the matter, the Board of Revenue had no business to proceed with the matter. Further, after holding that the revision was not maintainable, the Board of Revenue had allowed the prayer of the revisionist/Manager of the Concept Cars Limited in a most illegal and uncalled for manner. The Board of Revenue has overreached its jurisdiction and this Court deprecates the way the order has been passed to favour a private party in a nonmaintainable proceeding. This Court holds that the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 2.8.2021 is wholly illegal, non est and without jurisdiction. The authorities are directed not to take any action in pursuance of the order dated 2.8.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue

18. After Revision No.1146 of 2021 was filed by the Trust against the order darted 4.6.2021, the Trust filed a recall application before the District Magistrate, Hardoi praying to recall the order dated 4.6.2021. However, the District Magistrate vide order dated 31.1.2022 rejected the said application for recall on the ground that against the order dated 4.6.2021, a revision had already been filed by the Trust being Revision No.1146 of 2021 before the Board of Revenue and, therefore, the recall application was not maintainable. Against the said order dated 31.1.2022, the Trust has filed another Revision bearing No.511 of 2022 before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide interim order dated 9.3.2022, admitted the said revision and strangely enough stayed the orders dated 4.6.2021 and 31.1.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi. The Board of Revenue appears to be extra generous and benevolent towards the revisionist. The approach of the Board of Revenue is anything but judicial.

x------x------x------x------x------x

50. The land which was a public utility land, was resumed and allotted in favour of a private person, Late R.S Agrawal, Ex-IAS officer by the then District Magistrate in purported exercise of the power under Section 117(6) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 for charitable purpose and now it is being used for commercial purposes, therefore, such a land cannot be exchanged in any manner. Even otherwise, under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 the land in which bhumidhari rights cannot get accrued, cannot be exchanged.

x------x------x------x------x------x

53. As discussed above, the land recorded as a Jangal Dhak', is a public utility land and on such land bhumidhari rights could not have been created in favour of private person/ Trust headed by a such a person. Since the very order of resuming the land for a private Trust, was against the law and, therefore, it was void ab initio and no valid right, title or interest got accrued in favour of the private Trust and no exchange, therefore, is permitted. It is nothing but a mala fide, arbitrary and colourable exercise of the power by the then District Magistrate on a fraud played by the Trustees by usurping the public utility land ostensibly given for the charitable purposes, but they sold it amongst themselves for commercial purpose and constructed a commercial building, in which commercial establishment is being run for profit. This is nothing but an illegal encroachment of the Gram Sabha land by respondent No.5 and his family members. Such illegality cannot be permitted to continue in perpetuity. For commercial interest of opposite party no.5 and his sons, the villagers cannot be allowed to suffer.

x------x------x------x------x------x

59. In view of the aforesaid discussion, answers to the questions formulated above are as under:-

(i). The writ petition could not have been thrown out on the ground of alleged grudge of the petitioner against opposite party no.5 or his sons and Concept Cars Limited etc. inasmuch the writ petition involves question of huge public importance regarding allotment of public utility land in favour of the private persons in an arbitrary and illegal manner against the express provision of the law and, therefore, this Court has decided to examine the question of public importance involved in the present writ petition without going into the question of alleged personal grudge of the petitioner.

(ii). Order dated 30.1.1987 passed by then District Magistrate, Hardoi for resumption of the land in favour of the private Trust was against the provisions of Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 as the then District Magistrate was not empowered to resume the land for a private person/ Trust in exercise of powers purported to be vested in him under Section 117(6) U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 read with notification dated 16.6.1981. The order passed by the then District Magistrate was void ab initio inasmuch as it created the right in respect of the public utility land, which was recorded as Jangal Dhak' in revenue record of the relevant khatauni Fasli Years.

(iii). The District Magistrate, Hardoi after considering the three members committee report, has rightly held that the order dated 30.1.1987 was void ab initio and the committee has noted the fraud played by the Trustees in its detailed report. Therefore, the order passed by the District Magistrate for cancelling the entries in favour of opposite party no.5 etc., is in accordance with law and the District Magistrate deserves full credit for his decision, which has been taken in accordance with law.

(vi). As discussed above, in respect of the public utility land, no bhumidhari right can be accrued. The land recorded as Jangal Dhak', is a public utility land and under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, no bhumidhari right could not have been created in respect of the land in question. Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer for exchange of land, but this power does not extend to the land of the Gram Sabha, which is a public utility land and in which no bhumidhari right can be accrued. Therefore, no exchange is possible in respect of the land in question."

(xv) After the decision was rendered by the Court in the P.I.L. on 05th of July, 2022, the petitioner company being aggrieved preferred a Special Appeal before a Division Bench of this Court bearing Special Appeal No. 330 of 2022. The submissions made by the petitionercompany was noticed by the Division Bench as evident from paragraph 5 of the said judgment rendered by the Division Bench dated 29.07.2022 and after noticing subsequent development emerging from the decision of the Board of Revenue which decided three revisions on 20.06.2022. The Division Bench made the following observations in paragraph 9 and 10 of its decision dated 29.07.2022 and the relevant portion thereof is being reproduced for the ease of reference:-

"(c) On the aforesaid two counts, we find it appropriate not to enter into the merits of the judgment and order under appeal herein passed by the learned Single Judge and therefore proceed to consider as to whether in absence of any finding on the impact which the judgment and order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue would have on the entire matter, the instant Special Appeal can be appropriately decided or not. It is not in dispute that the learned Single Judge did not and could not have any occasion to consider the judgment and order dated 20.06.2022 of the Board of Revenue for the reason which has been discussed above

(g) So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, admittedly the judgment and order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue was not available to either of the parties to the Writ Petition at the time of its hearing before the learned Single Judge for the reason that at that time it was not rendered. The judgment by the Board of Revenue was delivered during the period when the judgment by the learned Single Judge was reserved after completion of the hearing of the Writ Petition. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that it was a situation of impossibility for either the appellant or any of the parties to the writ petition to have produced the judgment and order dated 20.06.2022 before the learned Single Judge during the course of the proceedings of the Writ Petition and thus it may be noted that the learned Single Judge did not have the occasion or opportunity to have considered the impact of the judgment and order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue on the issues involved in the case.

10. Conclusion:

For what has been narrated herein above, our indefeasible conclusion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is that it will neither be appropriate nor in the interest of justice to pronounce any judgment on the issues discussed and considered by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal herein, unless the judgment and order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue and its impact on the issues involved in the case are considered and decided by the learned Single Judge.

Order

Accordingly, this Special Appeal is disposed of with the liberty to the appellant to approach the learned Single Judge by way of seeking review of the judgment and order under appeal. While filing the review petition, it will be open to the appellant to take all the grounds which may be available to it under law. There will be no order as to costs."

(xvi) The petitioner-company had moved an application for modification of the order dated 29.07.2022 which was withdrawn by the petitioner-company. In the meantime, the impugned notice dated 08.08.2022 was issued by the Tehsildar addressed to Sanjeev Agarwal wherein it also referred to the decision rendered by the Court in P.I.L. dated 05th July, 2022 as well as the order of the Division Bench in Special Appeal dated 29.07.2022 and granted seven days' time for compliance of the order passed by the Court in P.I.L.

4. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner-company has approached this Court by means of the instant petition claiming the reliefs as reproduced hereinabove first.

A supplementary-affidavit has also been filed today by the petitioner which is taken on record.

5. Mr. S.C. Misra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that by means of the impugned notice, the order passed by the P.I.L. Court dated 05.07.2022 is sought to be executed against the petitioner-company, who was not a party in the P.I.L.

6. It is urged that the order of the P.I.L. qua the petitionercompany is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also urged that the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 20.06.2022 is not under challenged before any Court nor the same was before the P.I.L. Court while it had delivered its decision on 05.07.2022 and till such time the order of the Board of Revenue continues to subsist, being a judicial order by which the rights of the petitioner-company had been protected and the parties had been directed to maintain status-quo till the time the application moved by the petitionercompany seeking exchange of land in lieu of Plot No.1175 by the State Government is decided accordingly the attempt of the Staterespondent to overreach the order dated 20.06.2022 and seeking the enforcement of order which had been set aside by the Board of Revenue, though, the impugned notice is bad in law.

7. Mr. Misra, learned Senior Counsel has further urged that in the entire backdrop, it would indicate that the notice impugned in the instant petition is neither addressed to the petitioner-company. However, in the garb thereof, the Tehsildar is seeking to implement the judgment dated 05.07.2022 passed by the Court in P.I.L. No.7472 of 2021.

8. It has further been urged that insofar as the revenue authorities are concerned, its apex body is the Board of Revenue. Certain directions were given by Board of Revenue in its judicial order dated 20.06.2022 which till date has not been set aside. In case the notice impugned is not stayed, it will lead to an incongruous situation. It is submitted that on one hand the Board of Revenue has protected the rights of the petitioner-company till its application for exchange pending before the State Government is decided while on the other hand the Tehsildar is implementing the notice impugned in pursuance of the order passed by the Court dated 05.07.2022 in P.I.L.. In case the notice impugned is implemented, the rights of the petitioner-company shall be completely jeopardized even before the decision regarding exchange of land is taken by the competent State authorities which will result in sheer miscarriage of justice and would run contrary to the protection given by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 20.06.2022 which is binding on the State-respondent.

9. It has been strenuously urged by Mr. Misra that over the land of the Plot No.1175, there is a huge show-room of Maruti Car wherein several hundreds persons are employed and the petitioner-company is providing employment, generating income by paying taxes and contributing to the economy and well-being of the area. In such circumstances, where there is already an order passed by the Board of Revenue, the Tehsil Authorities may be restrained from implementing the notice impugned insofar as the Plot No.1175 only is concerned till the application for exchange is decided by the State.

10. It is also submitted that insofar as the other plots which were the subject-matter of the dispute is concerned, the Trust has taken a decision to surrender the same to the Authorities in compliance of the order passed by the writ court in PIL dated 05.07.2022 and thus, it is submitted that the State Authorities are getting a huge tract of land, but insofar as the Plot No.1175 is concerned, the petitioner-company is only seeking protection as in terms of the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue till the decision by the State Authorities on its application for exchange, which is under active consideration

11. Per contra, Mr. Abhinav Narain Trivedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has stated that the rights of the petitioner-company is nothing but subservient to the rights of the private-respondent No.4 Trust.

12. It is also urged that the Trust itself has executed two sale-deeds in favour of the individuals, who were none other than the sons of the President of the Trust and a relative, who thereafter have formed a Private Limited Company which is now espousing the cause of the petitioner-company, though, all their submissions were considered and only thereafter they were relegated to the remedy of review before the Court in P.I.L. by a Division Bench of this Court.

13. Mr. Trivedi further submits that the resumption of the land in favour of the respondent No.4 Trust itself was fraudulent. The compliance of the Government Order dated 09.05.1984 which prescribed certain restrictions and conditions was not adhered. Since, the Trust itself had no deed or instrument in its favour which conferred any title in the land in question except that it was handed over the possession, it was not open for the Trust to have executed any sale-deed and confer any better title than it already had and thus, the rights of the present petitioner cannot be better then what was available to the Trust and in the aforesaid circumstances, no benefit can be taken by the petitioner-company.

14. It has further been urged that once the order passed in the P.I.L., is subsisting and it has neither been modified or set aside or stayed by any superior Court, it is not open for any authority to ignore it as it directed that the compliance of the said order to be made forthwith.

15. It is also strenuously urged that the petitioner-company had assailed the order passed by the P.I.L. Court dated 05.07.2022 before the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.330 of 2022, however, the Division Bench also noticing the detailed facts and circumstances refrained from entering into the merits and granted liberty to the petitioner-company to seek a review of the judgment dated 05.07.2022 passed in P.I.L. No. 7472 of 2021 on all grounds as raised before the Division Bench.

16. It is urged that the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in special appeal clearly steered the petitioner-company to avail the remedy of review but instead of doing so, the petitioner-company has filed the instant petition which is not permissible and in any case an attempt is being made to seek stay on the order passed by the P.I.L. Court which is legally not permissible nor the petition can be entertained for the aforesaid purpose.

17. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the material on record meticulously.

18. The facts in between the parties are not in dispute. This Court while considering the narrative of facts has already noticed the chronology of facts as to how the instant petition came to be filed as well as the observations made by the Court in PIL as well as in special appeal in its order dated 29.07.2022 as well as the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, for the sake of brevity, the same is not being repeated.

19. From a perusal of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29.09.2022 passed in Special Appeal No.330 of 2022, a copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No.11, would reveal that primarily the argument which has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-company had been placed before the Division Bench as well. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Division Bench had clearly opined and recorded its conclusion that the petitioner-company would be at liberty of filing a review before the Court.

20. The Division Bench was also conscious regarding the impact of the judgment rendered by the Board of Revenue dated 20.06.2022 and it is in the said backdrop that it permitted the petitioner-company to raise all the aforesaid issues before the Court which decided the PIL, in review, if so desired.

21. Once the aforesaid findings and decision has been rendered by a Division Bench of this Court coupled with the fact that the judgment of the writ Court in P.I.L. No.4742 of 2021 dated 05.07.2022 which continues to hold the field and has not been either set aside or modified, this Court is of the considered view that by filing the present petition, the petitioner-company is attempting to seek an indirect remedy which ought to have done by filing a review. However, not having done so, it is not permissible for the petitioner to raise the same issues before this Court.

22. Any finding returned by this Court either on the issue of exchange, locus of the petitioner-company as well as the fact whether it was appropriately implemented in the P.I.L., or not and its effect including the impact of the decision of the Board of Revenue dated 20.06.2022 is the subject-matter which ought to be raised and considered in review if the petitioner filed a review as directed/provided by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 29.07.2022 but not before this Court.

23. Once the aforesaid issues were raised by the petitioner-company before the Division Bench of this Court and was considered and a detailed judgment dated 29.07.2022 was passed permitting the petitioner-company to avail the remedy of review, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the clear opinion that the instant petition is not maintainable and the petitioner-company is attempting to seek a remedy indirectly through this writ petition which cannot be granted and in case of any interference shown by this Court, it would run contrary to the decision in the P.I.L. dated 05.07.2022 Court as well as of the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.330 of 2022.

24. In so far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner relating to pendency of the application for exchange is concerned, the same is also subject to the observations made by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 29.07.2022 as the said submission is nothing but an outcome of the decision rendered by the Board of Revenue dated 20.06.2022 which has been taken note of by the Division Bench while granting liberty to the petitioner to seek a review of the judgment passed in the P.I.L. dated 05.07.2022.

25. This Court as a Coordinate Bench cannot sit over the order passed by the Court which decided the P.I.L. on 05.07.2022 and moreover the decision of the Division Bench dated 29.07.2022 is binding on this Court. It is now well settled that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly either. The petitioner can very well raise all his submissions before the Court concerned in review.

26. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is unable to accept the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and finds that there is no merit in this petition which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Costs are made easy.