Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 339 (ALL)

Lalsa Yadav v. Board of Revenue, Lucknow

2025-02-17

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2025
ORDER : (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.8/2024. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. No ground for impleadment is made out. 3. The Application is rejected. Order on Writ Petition. 1. Heard Mr. R.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner’s father- Jangi Yadav was granted lease of plot nos. 228, 117, 119, 120, 121 and 122. On the basis of the lease executed in favour of the petitioner’s father, his name was accordingly recorded in the revenue records in respect to plot no.228 only but the name of the petitioner’s father was not recorded over the remaining plots, accordingly, in the proceeding under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, an order was passed by the revenue authority for recording the name of the petitioner’s father but later on the order was recalled. The village in question was brought under consolidation operation by way of notification issued under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. C.H. Act”) on 27.6.1981. Against the basic year entry, an objection under Section 9(A)2 of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by the petitioner’s father in respect to plot in question. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.9.1986, directed to record the name of the petitioner’s father- Jangi Yadav over the plot in question on the basis of lease executed in his favour. In para no. 8 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that no appeal and revision has been filed by gram panchayat/land management committee against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 25.9.1986. In C.H. Form No.45, name of the petitioner’s father was recorded over the plot in question. Petitioner’s father expired in the year 1990 and after the death of the petitioner’s father, petitioner and his brothers have been recorded over the plot in question. An application dated 26.6.1997 was filed by one Sahabdin, a resident of village Sarai Haji before the District Magistrate/Deputy District Director of Consolidation with the prayer that the record of Case No.45, under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act be summoned and the entry made in favour of the petitioner’s father may be cancelled. An application dated 26.6.1997 was filed by one Sahabdin, a resident of village Sarai Haji before the District Magistrate/Deputy District Director of Consolidation with the prayer that the record of Case No.45, under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act be summoned and the entry made in favour of the petitioner’s father may be cancelled. The Chief Revenue Officer vide order dated 24.7.1997 directed to record the disputed plot in the name of the Gram Sabha. The petitioner challenged the order dated 24.7.1997 before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.34748 of 1997 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.10.1997 on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner challenged the order dated 24.7.1997 by way of revision before the Commissioner on 3.11.1997. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed by the Addl. Commissioner vide order dated 12.5.1998, setting aside the order dated 24.7.1997 on the ground that the Consolidation Officer in the title proceeding has passed the order to record the name of the petitioner’s father over the plot in question and the order has attained finality. Against the order dated 12.5.1998, Sahabdin filed a revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide order dated 17.8.1998 has set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 12.5.1998, on the ground that in view of the provisions contained under the Act, the order passed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained as the Commissioner cannot allow the revision rather he can make reference to the Board of Revenue for allowing or dismissing the revision. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs:- “1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 17.8.1998, passed by the respondent no.1 contained in Annexure No.14 to this Writ Petition. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent not to give effect in any manner referred to above.” 3. This Court entertained the matter on 10.5.1999 and stayed the effect and operation of the order impugned dated 17.8.1998. In pursuance of the order dated 10.5.1999, no counter has been filed by the State and the Gaon Sabha. 4. This Court entertained the matter on 10.5.1999 and stayed the effect and operation of the order impugned dated 17.8.1998. In pursuance of the order dated 10.5.1999, no counter has been filed by the State and the Gaon Sabha. 4. The instant petition was dismissed under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against respondent no.4 who was complainant of the proceeding, as such, there is difficulty to decide the instant petition on merit because writ petition arises out of the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and State/Gram Panchayat are parties in the instant petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the order dated 25.9.1986 passed by the Consolidation Officer in the title proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, the order passed for expunging the petitioner’s entry in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the Additional Commissioner after considering each and every aspect of the matter, has allowed the revision and set aside the order passed in the proceeding under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He submitted that the revision was filed before the Commissioner and after the amendment made in the Act, the Commissioner was competent to allow the revision on merit rather to make reference before the Board of Revenue. He submitted that the Board of Revenue has illegally set aside the order and remanded the matter again before the Commissioner for deciding the revision afresh. He submitted that specific averment has been made in paragraph no.8 of the writ petition that order passed by the Consolidation Officer has become final as no appeal/revision has been filed by any one. He submitted that C.H. Form No.45 is annexed along with the writ petition in order to demonstrate that the petitioner’s father was recorded over the plot in question on the basis of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, as such, there is no illegality in the order of Addl. Commissioner, allowing the revision filed by the petitioner. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue should be set aside and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 12.5.1998 should be affirmed. 6. Commissioner, allowing the revision filed by the petitioner. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue should be set aside and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 12.5.1998 should be affirmed. 6. On the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that no interference is required against the order impugned dated 17.8.1998 as under the impugned order only the matter has been remanded back before the Commissioner to decide the revision afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He submitted that the Chief Revenue Officer has rightly expunged the petitioner’s entry which has been illegally set aside by the Additional Commissioner in revision. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the order was passed by the Chief Revenue Officer on 24.7.1997 but in revision the order passed by the Chief Revenue Officer was set aside and the entry of the petitioner’s father was maintained. There is also no dispute about the fact that the Board of Revenue has set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and remitted the matter again to the Commissioner to decide the revision afresh. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner will be relevant which is as under:- 10. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner fully demonstrates that the petitioner’s father was ordered to be recorded over the plot in question in the title proceeding, as such, initiation of summary proceeding in respect to the plot in question is abuse of process of law. The Additional Commissioner has entertained the revision filed by the petitioner and allowed the revision, setting aside the order of the Chief Revenue Officer. The exercise of jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner is in accordance with law, as such, there was no occasion to remit the matter again before the Additional Commissioner to decide the revision afresh. 11. The Additional Commissioner has entertained the revision filed by the petitioner and allowed the revision, setting aside the order of the Chief Revenue Officer. The exercise of jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner is in accordance with law, as such, there was no occasion to remit the matter again before the Additional Commissioner to decide the revision afresh. 11. So far as amendment made in U.P. Land Revenue Act by U.P. Act No.XX of 1997 is concerned, the date of enforcement of amendment is 18.8.1997 and revision in the instant matter has been filed on 3.11.1997 before Commissioner, as such, there was no illegality to decide the revision on merit rather to make reference before the Board of Revenue. The date of filing of revision before the Commissioner is mentioned in the first paragraph of revisional order dated 12.5.1998 which demonstrate that revision was filed after the amendment by U.P. Act No.XX of 1997. 12. This Court in the case reported in 2002 (93) RD 236 , Ram Kailash Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Others has considered the scope of amendment made by U.P. Act No.XX of 1997 and has held that Commissioner can decide the revision on merit even if the reference / revision was filed before 18.8.1997 but reference was not made upto 18.8.1997. Paragraph no.6 of the judgment rendered in Ram Kailash Yadav (supra) will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- “6. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that earlier no power of revision was exercised by the Board of Revenue under Section 219 and under Section 218 the Additional Commissioner, Collector, the Record Officer or the Settlement Officer has jurisdiction to call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings, and, if it were of opinion that the proceeding taken or order passed by such subordinate officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed, the reference was required to be made to the Board of Revenue. By deletion of provision of reference by the U. P. Act No. XX of 1997, now Section 219 has been substituted which gives power of revision both to Board of Revenue and the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner or Collector or Record Officer or Settlement Officer. By deletion of provision of reference by the U. P. Act No. XX of 1997, now Section 219 has been substituted which gives power of revision both to Board of Revenue and the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner or Collector or Record Officer or Settlement Officer. The earlier power of reference has also been deleted and the revisional power has been given. Now the Additional Commissioner, if he is satisfied that any order passed by subordinate authority is required to be reversed it can exercise the revisional power and there is no need for reference to the Board of Revenue. At the time when the revision was filed in the year 1992, the said revision was under Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act claiming exercise of power of reference. Section 10 of the U. P. Act No. XX of 1997 has only saved the reference which were already referred to the Board of Revenue on 18.8.1997. Thus, even if the reference was filed under Section 218 prior to 18.8.1997 in which no reference was made to the Board of Revenue, the same could not have been continued as the reference under Section 218. Now the Commissioner himself has been vested with the power of revisional jurisdiction under Section 219. In Revision No. 41 of 1992 which is pending before the Commissioner, there is no lack of Jurisdiction in the Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdiction. The exercise of jurisdiction now has to be made under Section 219 instead of Section 218. Merely because in the memo of revision Section 218 was mentioned earlier, it will not Inhibit the Commissioner in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act.” 13. It is also material to mention that no counter affidavit has been filed by State for the last more than 25 years, as such, there is no option except to decide the instant petition on the basis of averment made in the writ petition as mentioned above. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances, especially, the order dated 25.9.1986 passed by the Consolidation Officer in the title proceeding which has attained finality, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 12.5.1998, accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.8.1998, passed by the respondent no.1/Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 15. 15. The writ petition stands allowed and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 12.5.1998 is hereby affirmed. 16. No order as to costs.