Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 658 (ALL)

Ram Swarup v. Anokhey Lal

1984-08-29

I.B.SINGH

body1984
JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member- This is a revision against order dated 13-9-1982 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division Agra, dismissing application of applicant under Section 27 (4) of Large Holdings on Ceiling Act for cancellation of pattas granted under that Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised filing application relying on 1973 R.D. page 3, 1974 R.D. Supplement page 193, 1984 R.J. page 189, 1980 R.D. page 46 ; that revision under Section 27 (4) of U.P. imposition on ceiling and Land Holding Act is not maintainable in the Board of Revenue. 4. It has been argued in reply on behalf of the applicant that the word used under Section 27 (4) of that Act does not debar revision being entertained by the Board of Revenue. 5. The patta is granted under Section 27 (4) of Large Holding on Ceiling Act and the patta is not granted by L.M.C. under Act I of 1961 but its provisions regarding categories etc. and provisions of Rules are made applicable but the Act I of 1951 itself had been made applicable and Section 27 (4) of the Large Holdings on Ceiling Act itself provided that the order of the learned commissioner/learned. Additional Commissioner the later being included in the former ; is final, therefore, as there is no provision of revision in that Act the provision of revision by Board is not applicable, therefore, against any order passed under Section 27 (4) of that Act no revision lies to the Board. Reliance can be placed on 1973 R.D. page 3. Vijai Singh v. State and also on Ram Singh v. Board of Revenue, 1984 Revenue Judgments page 189. 6. In view of the above, this revision application is held not to be enter-tainable in Board of Revenue against order under Section 27 (4) of Large Holdings on Ceiling Act passed by Commissioner or learned Additional Commissioner; that order being final and no revision against it lies in Board of Revenue. Hence this revision application is rejected being not entertain able by Board of Revenue.