Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 307 (ALL)

Atrunnisha v. State of U. P.

2015-02-16

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri J.N. Shrama, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri R.S. Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4. By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order 9.1.2015 passed by the Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow in Revision No. 117 of 2014 by which the matter has been sent before the Divisional Commissioner of the concerned Division by granting an interim protection staying the order dated 15.3.2014 passed by the Tehsildar for hearing the matter on the maintainability of the mutation application and the order dated 20.3.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Appeal No. 15 of 2014 (Taj Mohd. v. Atrunnisan and others) by which the appeal has been dismissed holding it to be not maintainable and returning the record to the Tehsildar to decide the case on merit. 2. The facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioners herein have filed a mutation application before the Tehsildar, Belthra Road, Ballia which was numbered as Case No. 130. In the aforesaid case, it appears that the respondents have filed an objection regarding maintainability of the mutation application. On 15.3.2014 the fixed 203.2014 for disposal of objection regarding of objection regarding maintainability of the mutation application. 3. Against the aforesaid order the respondents herein have filed Appeal No. 15 of 2014 (Taj Mohd. v. Atrunnisan and others) under section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Pending appeal this Court was approached through Writ C No. 26123 of 2014 seeking a direction to decide the mutation application. It was argued before this Court that against the order dated 15.3.2014 appeal was not maintainable. This Court vide order dated 19.2.2014 has disposed of the writ petition with the direction to take this objection before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to decide the objection of the petitioners regarding maintainability of the mutation application within three months. Pursuant thereto the order dated 18.6.2014 was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer holding the appeal not maintainable. 4. Pursuant thereto the order dated 18.6.2014 was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer holding the appeal not maintainable. 4. Both the orders dated 15.3.2014 and 18.6.2014 passed by the Tehsildar fixing a date for disposal of the objection regarding maintainability of the mutation application and the order dated 18.6.2014 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, were made subject-matter of Revision No. 117 of 2014 in which the impugned order has been passed. 5. Sri J.N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the limitation for filing the revision against the orders dated 15.3.2014 and 18.6.2014 had expired and the revision had become time barred. He further submits that the without there being any delay condonation application and without there being any order condoning the delay, no interim order could be passed. In fact there could be no revision unless the delay was condoned. In his further submissions the impugned order without condoning the delay is without jurisdiction as the limitation goes to the root matter. He further submits that the Board of Revenue, Lucknow has illegally entertained the revision and granted the interim order without admitting the same. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court in Noharlal Verma v. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur 2008 (14) SCC 445 , V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and another 2005 (4) SCC 613 , Sneh Gupta v. Devi Swarup and others 2009 (6) SCC 194 , Ragho Singh v. Mohan Singh 2001 (9) SCC 717 and Nagar Palika Parishad v. Raghuraj Singh Public Inter College and others 2012 (8) ADJ 210 . 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, I am not inclined to keep this Writ petition pending before this Court and call for the counter-affidavit. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, I am not inclined to keep this Writ petition pending before this Court and call for the counter-affidavit. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, which prima facie, appears to be correct, the Registrar, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow is directed to transmit the record of the Revision No. 117 of 2014 before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court and the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh is directed to decide the revision positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the record of the revision after the affective service of notice upon the parties. In case any adjournment is sought that may be granted only after imposing cost, not less than Rs. 1,000/- per date, with the direction to deposit the cost by the next date fixed. It is also directed that in case of default in payment of the cost the right of defaulting party to participate in the future proceeding of the case may be closed. With the aforesaid observation/direction the writ petition is disposed of.