Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2318 (ALL)

Mushafir v. Board of Revenue

2019-10-01

JAHANGIR JAMSHED MUNIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Jahangir Jamshed Munir, J. 1. The case of the petitioner is that he is plaintiff of Suit No. 262 Musafir v. Ram Sakal and others filed under section 229-B U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, against the defendant No. 2-Tej Bahadur, seeking declaration of his rights and title over the land that is detailed in the plaint, giving rise to the aforesaid Suit. The Suit aforesaid was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.6.1990, on the basis of a compromise entered into between parties after due verification by the Court on 21.3.1990. Against the aforesaid order disposing of the Suit in terms of compromise, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a Restoration Application along with a Delay Condonation Application, seeking to set aside the compromise. The Restoration Application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 26.5.2006, and the decree dated 16.6.1990 passed on compromise was set aside. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.5.2016, setting aside the compromise decree, defendant-respondent No. 2, Tej Bahadur filed a Revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad bearing Revision No. 58 of 2007-08 on 27.2.2008. The aforesaid Revision was dismissed by the Board vide order dated 28.2.2014 on ground that the said Revision is a second Revision, as the petitioner asserts in paragraph-9 of the writ petition. Against the aforesaid order dated 28.2.2014, a Recall Application was filed by the defendant-Tej Bahadur on 16.6.2014 along with a Delay Condonation Application. It is asserted that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the Board of Revenue passed an order dated 29.8.2014 granting an order of interim injunction ordering status quo. It is alleged that the Recall Application filed by defendant-Tej Bahadur is pending before the Board of Revenue for the last five years but till date has not been decided. 2. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he is an old man aged about 70 years and the litigation is going on for the past thirty years. He is suffering the order of interim injunction directing status quo passed on the Restoration Application filed by the second respondent in the decided Revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the order-sheet of Recall Application No. 105/2013-14, filed in Revision No. 58 of 2007-08. He is suffering the order of interim injunction directing status quo passed on the Restoration Application filed by the second respondent in the decided Revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the order-sheet of Recall Application No. 105/2013-14, filed in Revision No. 58 of 2007-08. A perusal of the order-sheet shows that after the initial order dated 29.8.2014 was passed, entertaining the Recall Application, no order of moment or consequence has been made. The case is being adjourned casually. On four dates between 14.4.2019 and 22.7.2019, the case has been adjourned by fixing general dates without any application of mind by the Presiding Officer. On other dates also, there is adjournment that is not occasioned by any step in proceedings. It is all casual and mechanical. 3. Looking to the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 7, as no order of determination of rights of parties is made here. However, in case if the said respondent Nos. 2 to 7 feel aggrieved by this order, it will be open to them to move an application in the decided petition. 4. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad, are ordered to decide pending Recall Application No. 105 of 2013-14 in Revision No. 58 of 2007-08 Tej Bahadur v. Musafir relating to District Ballia, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Board, after hearing all parties concerned in accordance with law. 5. The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid orders. Costs easy.