Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 21 (ALL)

Shiv Narain v. State of U. P.

2020-01-03

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Despite opportunity having been granted to the Standing Counsel, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and, therefore, the Court has proceeded to decide the writ petition on the facts stated in and the documents annexed with the writ petition. 2. The facts of the case are that in pursuance to the alleged order dated 26.6.1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case Nos. 1221 to 1232 registered under section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act, 1953'), the petitioner was recorded as tenure holder of plot Nos. 1333, 1347, 1362, 1492 and 1493 situated in Village Senpurva Para, District Kanpur Nagar in revenue records relating to the said plots. 3. An enquiry was instituted at the instance of the then Revenue Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh and relying on the enquiry report, the Sub Divisional Officer vide his order dated 18.9.1972 held that the petitioner was wrongly recorded as the tenure holder of the disputed plots and the parwana (process) issued to record the petitioner as tenure holder of the disputed plot was a forged document. 4. It appears from the records annexed to the writ petition that before the Enquiry Committee constituted as aforesaid the Lekhpal and the Gram Pradhan had testified that the plot was still 'banjar' and was not being used for agricultural purposes. Consequently, through his aforesaid order, the Sub Divisional Officer directed that the revenue records related to the disputed plots be corrected expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue records and the said plots be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad vide his order dated 8.1.1979. 5. Aggrieved the petitioner filed another revision before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow which was registered as Revision No. 143/LR of 1981-82. The said revision was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 31.10.1994. Through its aforesaid order, the Board of Revenue set aside the orders dated 18.9.1972 and 8.1.1979 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner respectively. The said revision was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 31.10.1994. Through its aforesaid order, the Board of Revenue set aside the orders dated 18.9.1972 and 8.1.1979 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner respectively. Subsequently, a review application was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh for review of the order dated 31.10.1994 and on the said review application, Review Case No. 245/LR of 2011-12 was registered before the Board of Revenue. The review application was filed on 31.10.2011 and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 20.12.2011 has admitted the review application for hearing without condoning the delay in filing the application. The order dated 20.12.2011 has been challenged in the present writ petition. 6. In its order dated 20.12.2011, the Board of Revenue has held that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply in the present case as prima facie the case involves violation of the relevant legislative provisions and the petitioner cannot be allowed to perfect his rights over the disputed plots by misusing the process of law. The opinion of the Board of Revenue is clearly contrary to section 220(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short 'the Act, 1901'). Section 220(2) of the Act, 1901 enables the Board of Revenue to review its own order only if an application has been filed for such a review within a period of 90 days from passing of the decree or order and if the application is made after the said period, the applicant satisfies the Board that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the period prescribed under section 220(2) of the Act, 1901. In view of the aforesaid, the Board could not have admitted the review for hearing without considering the delay in filing the review application and without passing appropriate orders condoning the delay in filing the review application. 7. Further a reading of the order dated 20.12.2011 also shows that the Board of Revenue has pre-decided the case on merits, inasmuch as, in its aforesaid order, the Board of Revenue has recorded its opinion that the petitioner had tried to perfect his rights by misusing the process of law and by illegal means. Apparently, the order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue in Review Case No. 245/LR-2011-12 is illegal and liable to be set aside. Apparently, the order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue in Review Case No. 245/LR-2011-12 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. The order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue to pass fresh orders in Review Case No. 245/LR of 2011-12 in accordance with law after considering the delay condonation application filed by the State of U.P. It is clarified that while considering the delay in filing the review application, the Board of Revenue may take into consideration the conduct of the concerned officers of the State in causing the delay in filing the review application. The Board of Revenue shall pass fresh orders within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it by either of the parties. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.