Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1694 (ALL)

Chabinath v. Board of Revenue, Alld.

2019-07-15

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Shri B.B. Paul, Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Counsel for the respondents. The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 12.3.2015 and 2.6.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue at Allahabad in Revision No. 31 of 2011 and Review No. 1 of 2015 respectively. 2. Revision No. 31 of 2011 was filed by the contesting respondents against the order dated 7.5.2012 and 30.4.2012 passed by the Collector, Sant Ravidas Nagar whereby the allotment made in favour of respondent Nos. 6 to 23 and other allottees had been cancelled. The Board of Revenue after considering the records of the case has recorded a finding that the impugned orders were passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the allottees and without giving them any opportunity to produce their evidence to defend the allotments made in their favour and no notices were served on the allottees and also, on the ground that the orders were passed by the Collector merely relying on the report of the Tahsildar. Consequently, the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 12.3.2015 set aside the order passed by the Collector and remanded back the matter to the Collector to pass fresh orders in accordance with law in light of the observations made in the order passed by the Board of Revenue and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the allottees. The review application filed by the petitioners for review of the order dated 12.3.2015 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 2.6.2015. 3. It was argued by the Counsel for the petitioners that the reasons given by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 12.3.2015 are contrary to records as while passing the orders dated 7.5.2012 and 30.4.2012, the Collector had considered the affidavits and other evidence filed with the case and not only the report of the Tahsildar. It was also argued by the Counsel for the petitioners that notices were served on the allottees as would be evident from the documents annexed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition. 4. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 12.3.2015 are contrary to records and the order is liable to be set aside. 5. 4. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 12.3.2015 are contrary to records and the order is liable to be set aside. 5. The order dated 12.3.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue is a remand order and the parties shall have an opportunity to produce their evidence and present their case before the Collector. In view of the aforesaid, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. However, the Court has also perused the records. Notices annexed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition show that service of notice on the allottees is by refusal and that only one of the allottee, Shri Swami Nath Yadav, had filed his Vakalatnama in the case registered before the Collector. Further, a reading of the order passed by the Collector shows that except regarding Swami Nath Yadav, the Collector cancelled the allotment made in favour of the allottees relying only on the report of the Tehsildar. It is also pertinent to note that in its impugned order dated 12.3.2015, the Board of Revenue has also recorded that while cancelling the allotment, the Collector had not recorded any finding as to whether the proceedings were barred by time. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the Board of Revenue rightly remanded back the matter to the Collector to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving the interested parties an opportunity of hearing and an opportunity to present their case. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. However, considering the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the Collector, Sant Ravidas Nagar shall decide the case registered before him under section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by either of the parties.