Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3509 (ALL)

Ram Chandra v. Board of Revenue, Lucknow

2016-10-20

ANIL KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Matter is taken up in the revised list. 2. None present on behalf of the opposite party no.3. 3. Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 4. Facts in brief of the present case are that opposite party no.3/Iqbal moved an application under Section 28 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for correction of the map before the Tehsildar. After receiving the report submitted by Supervisory Kanoongo as well as taking into consideration the objection filed by the petitioner, by order dated 09.04.1997 passed by opposite party no.2, application was allowed. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filedd the revision before the Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur under Section 218 of Land Revenue Act, allowed by order dated 07.07.1999, challenged by the opposite party no.3 by filing Revision under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue, U. P. Lucknow, allowed by order dated 14.11.2000. 6. In view of the above said factual background, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 14.11.2000 passed by opposite party no.1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow. 7. Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate while challenging the impugned order submits that in the present case, during the pendency of the litigation, before the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 as substituted by U. P. Act 20 of 1997 came into force w.e.f. 18.08.1997 by which the provisions of Section 219 was amended. 8. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate that Section 10 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act as substituted Section 10 of U. P. Act 20 of 1997 by which the provisions of Section 10 was also amended. So keeping in view the said position of law, the order passed by opposite party no.1/Board of Revenue is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute above said legal position. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 11. So keeping in view the said position of law, the order passed by opposite party no.1/Board of Revenue is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute above said legal position. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 11. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that U. P. Land Revenue Act came into force w.e.f. 18.08.1997 by which Section 218 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1904 has been deleted and Section 219 of the Act has been amended, which reads as under : - "(1) The Board or the commissioner or the Additional Commissioner of the Collector of the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, may call for the record of any case, decided or proceeding held by any revenue court sub-ordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding field and if such subordinate revenue court appears to have - (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) failed to exercise it jurisdiction so vested, or (c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegality or with material irregularity. the Bord or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, may pass such order in the case as he thinks fit. (2) If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board, or to the Commissioner, or to the Additional Commissioner, or to the Collector or to the Record Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them." 12. (2) If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board, or to the Commissioner, or to the Additional Commissioner, or to the Collector or to the Record Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them." 12. Further Section 10 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act as substituted Section 10 of U. P. Act 20 of 1997 which reads as under : - "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act all cases referred to the Board under Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act 1901 or under Section 333-A of U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950 as they stood immediately before the commencement of this Act and pending before the Board on the date of such commencement was continued to be heard and decided by the Board as if this Act has not been enacted." 13. Keeping in view the above said change position of law, the order dated 14.11.2000 passed by opposite party no.1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in revision is contrary to provisions of Section 219 of the Act. 14. Further, once Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 has been deleted w.e.f.18.08.1997, so the direction given by the Board of Revenue to Addition Commissioner (Administration), Gorakhpur Division, Gorkahpur to decide the matter as per terms of the said section is without jurisdiction and void ab initio, liable to be set aside. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.11.2000 passed by opposite party no.1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow is set aside with a direction to the said authority to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as opposite party no.3 in accordance with the provisions as provided under U. P. Land Revenue Act as amended by U. P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act 1997 by U. P. Act No.20 of 1997, expeditiously.