Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 358 (ALL)

Lavlesh Singh v. Board of Revenue

2020-02-03

PRAKASH PADIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Prakash Padia, J. 1. Heard Sri Shyam Lal Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Praveen Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Sri Azad Rai, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, and Sri Dharam Pal Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Harish Chandra Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 9. 2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 9.1.2020 passed by the member of Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj in Case No. RES/1272/2018/Kaushambi (Harish Chand and others v. Shiv Singh and others). 3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that a suit being Case No. 374/86/197 of 1997 was filed. The said suit was finally allowed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide its judgment and order 6.9.2001. Against the aforesaid order, a revision was preferred by the Dharamraj and Ram Krapal being Revision No. 5 of 2001-02 as provided under section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 before the Board of Revenue. The said revision was dismissed in default on 19.1.2006. Against aforesaid order, a restoration application was filed by Harish Chandra and others, which are private respondents, before the respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue in the month of May, 2018. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed along with the restoration application. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the restoration application that Harish Chandra was in jail between 2001 and 2007. A reply to the aforesaid restoration application was filed by the petitioners stating therein that it is wrong to say that he was in jail during the aforesaid period and in fact he was released on bail on 29.1.2001. After hearing Counsel for the parties, impugned order dated 9.1.2020 was passed by the respondent No. 1 by which the order of dismissed in default was recalled and the revision was restored to its original number. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 4. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners that wrong recital has been made in the order dated 9.1.2020. It is stated in the order that Harish Chandra was in jail between 2001 to 2007 while he was released on bail on 29.1.2001. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 4. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners that wrong recital has been made in the order dated 9.1.2020. It is stated in the order that Harish Chandra was in jail between 2001 to 2007 while he was released on bail on 29.1.2001. In this regard, Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Kaushambi on 29.8.2001 copy of which is appended as Annexure 8-B to the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents argued that the consolidation proceedings were initiated in the village in question by publication of a Notification under section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 w.e.f. 1.10.2005 and as such entire proceedings are deemed to be abated. 6. In response to the aforesaid argument, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that until and unless the order dated 9.1.2020 will not be set aside, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties present. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties present, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 8. There is no dispute to the fact that wrong recital has been made in the order impugned to the effect that Harish Chandra was in jail between 2001 and 2007 and in fact it is admitted between the parties that he was released on bail on 29.8.2001. It is clear that the order dated 9.1.2001 was passed on the basis of wrong recital and the objections raised by the petitioners were not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order, it further appears that the order impugned is absolutely non speaking order and passed without application of mind. 9. In the fact and circumstances of the case and in view of the above, the order dated 9.1.2020 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 10. The respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits on the restoration application in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments, if there is no other legal impediment. 11. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the respondent No. 1 is free to pass orders in accordance with law without influencing any observations made in this order.