Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2373 (ALL)

Satish Kumar Dubey v. State Of UP

2024-11-19

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard Sri R. C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for respondents No. 6 and 8 and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel assisted by Sri Rishabh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 9. 2. The present proceedings are apparently initiated on a complaint filed by one Vishambhar Singh in regard to alleged forged entries in revenue records in regard to the Gata No. 419 in favour of the petitioner. Few enquiries were conducted on said complaint and finally a suit was got instituted under Section 33 /39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 3. In the proceedings of the said suit, complainant Vishambhar Singh and petitioner herein filed their respective evidence in the form of various documents which are mentioned in the order also and finally the S.D.M. Ballia, by order dated 03.03.2014, has accepted the application of the complainant in part and it was directed that name of present petitioner be expunged from the revenue records. For reference the relevant parts of the order is reproduced hereinafter :- 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above referred order filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue raising inter alia various grounds on law as well as on facts and written submission was also filed. The Board of Revenue by order dated 07.08.2024 rejected the revision petition and upheld the order impugned therein. For ready reference relevant part there of is mentioned hereinafter :- 5. The aforesaid referred both the orders dated 03.03.2014 and 07.08.2014 are impugned in the present petition. 6. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel assisted by Sri Rishabh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 9 has made a preliminary objection that challenge to the proceedings arising under Section 39 /39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 by way of a writ petition is not maintainable and referred judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the Case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2021 SCC Online 802. Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Narayan Singh and Charan Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner Meerut , 1999 3 AWC 1931 and Jaipal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2021 SCC Online 802. Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Narayan Singh and Charan Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner Meerut , 1999 3 AWC 1931 and Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue 1956 0 AIILJ 807 that since said proceedings are summary in nature and it does not create any right of title therefore, challenge to any order passed therein in a writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Sri R. C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for petitioner has opposed the above submissions and submits that if it is shown that order impugned is perverse and a revision petition is being dismissed without even considering various documents placed on record as well as a detailed written statements and that impugned order passed was beyond jurisdiction, a writ petition is still maintainable before this Court. In support of his submission learned Senior Counsel refers a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. Anilbhai Jayantbhai Patel 2006 (8) SCC 200 i.e. the scope and extent of power of judicial review of the High Court contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India would vary from case to case of the order, nature, relevant statute and also the other relevant factors including nature of power exercised by public authority namely, whether the power and statutory quasi judicial or administrative and judicial review is available, where there is a procedural impropriety. 8. Learned Senior Counsel referred a judgment of coordinate Bench in Krishna Singh and Another Vs. Commissioner Gorakhpur and Another , 2023:AHC:58657 that in exceptional circumstances, a writ could be entertained against orders in a mutation proceedings such as if order suffers from some patent jurisdictional error or order were obtained on basis of fraud. 9. I have considered the above submission and am of considered opinion that in present case the Board of Revenue has not applied its independent mind while considering the revision petition and in a very cursory manner upheld the findings returned in the impugned order there in, which goes to root of the case and therefore in order to cure a patent illegal order, present writ is maintainable. 10. 10. The Court has asked the learned counsel for the parties to read paragraph 6 of the impugned order and to correlate it with the last paragraph of the order dated 03.03.2014 which was impugned before it. Both the orders have already referred in the preceding paragraph of the present order that the Board of Revenue has verbatim reproduced the said order and in the next paragraph in a very vague manner held that no ground for interference was made out. The said approach on face of it appears to be erroneous. 11. The Court also considered the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, which have substance that a detailed revision petition was filed along with various documents as well as detailed written submissions was also filed but the Board of Revenue has not referred even a part of it in the impugned order and in a very vague manner has upheld the finding returned in the impugned order therein. 12. The Board of Revenue is a under legal obligation to exercise its judicial mind independently and to consider legally sustainable documents either mentioned in memo of revision petition, during oral arguments or in the written submissions which does not reflect in the impugned order as well as legal issues were also not dealt. 13. In aforesaid circumstance, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order in present form does not survive and is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision petition after hearing the parties afresh, taking note of their submissions, oral as well as written and pass a reasoned order, applying independent mind. The said exercise shall be concluded within six months. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.