Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 195 (ALL)

Ashok Thakur v. Board of Revenue U. P. At Lucknow

2017-01-13

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 3. These proceedings were initiated by the petitioner claiming on the basis of a will in his favour. The mutation application was allowed and the consequential appeal and revisions filed by the contesting respondent were also dismissed. 4. However, the revisional Court while dismissing the revision filed by the contesting respondent made certain observations. These observations were to the effect that, in case, a restoration application was filed by the contesting respondent, the revisionist in the Court below before the trial Court, the same may be considered on its merits without dismissing it on the ground of limitation. 5. Against the revisional order, passed by the Commissioner at the instance of the contesting respondent, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed and the observations made as regards the limitation for filing the restoration application are stated to have been set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a restoration application had already been filed for recall of the order passed by the trial Court before directions were issued in revision and therefore no restoration application was filed in pursuance of the direction. He also submits that since the restoration application was already pending, no second restoration application was, in any case, required to be filed. 7. In this restoration application, which was already pending, it appears that an objection was raised by the petitioner that it had been filed by an imposter. An application appears to have been filed for summoning the person who had filed a restoration application for determining this issue. This application for summoning the alleged applicant appears to have been rejected. 8. Against the order, a revision was again filed by the Board of Revenue, which has been decided by the impugned order dated 27.06.2016. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned is for all practical purposes a non speaking order. The contentions raised have not been adverted to and the revision has been cursorily dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order. 11. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned is for all practical purposes a non speaking order. The contentions raised have not been adverted to and the revision has been cursorily dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order. 11. The proceedings where from the writ petition arises, are summary proceedings which do not determine the title of the parties thereto. 12. In so far as the impugned order rejects the prayer of the petitioner for summoning the applicant to establish as to whether or not the restoration application was filed by some imposter, I do not consider it a fit case for interference. 13. The restoration application is pending consideration and the petitioner may raise all pleas in this regard before the Court concerned, which shall necessarily consider the contentions of the petitioner, while deciding the restoration application. 14. The impugned orders, in my considered opinion do not warrant interference as it observes that the restoration application has been filed by the petitioner, primarily, for keeping the proceedings pending. 15. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the above observation is not entirely uncalled for. 16. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commissioner before the Board of Revenue, wherein certain observations had been made, whereby the contesting respondent was permitted to file a restoration application in which the question of limitation would not be considered and the restoration application was required to be considered on its merits. 17. This order was challenged despite the fact that no restoration application was filed by the contesting respondent, in pursuance of the directions. 18. This fact, in itself shows that the observation made by the Board of Revenue in the impugned order dated 27.06.2016 is not uncalled for. 19. In view of the above discussion and since no cogent ground warranting interference has been made out, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.