Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1792 (ALL)

Akhtar Alam v. Board of Revenue

2016-05-10

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 8.11.2000 as well as the order of the Board of Revenue dated 17.2.2016. 3. The fact of the case is that the respondents had filed a Suit No. 795 for declaration under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The said suit was dismissed on 25.10.1985, against which the respondents then filed first appeal on 5.12.1985. The said appeal was allowed by an ex parte order dated 18.2.1989. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner then filed a Second Appeal No. 85 which was allowed by the Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 24.9.1991. The respondents aggrieved by the judgment of the Board of Revenue then preferred a Writ Petition No. 33472 of 1991 which was decided and allowed on 19.11.1991. While allowing the writ petition the order of the Board of Revenue dated 24.9.1991 was set aside as well as order dated 25.10.1985 was also set aside. 4. It is submitted that the respondents then moved a correction application and order dated 19.11.1991 was corrected by order dated 11.12.1991 and in place of setting aside the order dated 25.10.1985 the order dated 18.2.1989 was set aside meaning thereby the court has remanded the matter back to the Additional Commissioner to decide the appeal of the respondent-Chintamani afresh. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal the matter was remanded back to the Additional Commissioner, but the Additional Commissioner considering the uncorrected order holding that the High Court has also set aside/quash the order dated 25.10.1985 has remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the suit afresh. The petitioner made an application that the order that has been quashed by the High Court is the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 18.2.1989 and not the order in suit dated 25.10.1985. The Additional Commissioner did not accept the contention of the petitioner and rejected the application vide order dated 8.11.2000. The petitioner then preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and that revision has also been rejected holding that the High Court quashed the order dated 25.10.1985. 5. The Additional Commissioner did not accept the contention of the petitioner and rejected the application vide order dated 8.11.2000. The petitioner then preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and that revision has also been rejected holding that the High Court quashed the order dated 25.10.1985. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown a copy of the order dated 19.11.1991 along with correction application filed before this Court in Writ Petition No. 33472 of 1991 and it appears that the order dated 19.11.1991 was corrected and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 18.2.1989 was quashed instead of order dated 25.10.1985 of the trial court. As such, it would be appropriate to directed the Additional Commissioner to decide the appeal afresh pursuant to the order dated 19.11.1991 and correction order dated 11.12.1991 and decide the appeal as per direction of this Court dated 19.11.1991. The writ petition is, thus, allowed to the aforesaid extent. 6. However, since the writ petition is allowed at this stage, it would be open for the respondents to file an application for recall of this order as no notice was issued upon them, in case they feel aggrieved by the present order.