ORDER :- I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution. By this petition the petitioner challenges the correctness of an order of the Board of Revenue dated 9-12-1953 by which a second appeal was dismissed by the Board. The petitioner should have approached this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution which is the appropriate provision for this purpose.

2. On merits also this petition has no force. It appears that the second appeal was first heard by one Member of the Board of Revenue. Shri A. Rauf on 22-8-1953 passed his judgment holding that he would allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and restore that passed by the trial court. This judgment went for concurrence to another Member Shri T.N. Srivastava who differed from Shri A. Rauf and held that he would suggest that the decree of the Additional Commissioner should be maintained and the appeal be dismissed. Consequent on this difference of opinion between the two Members, Shri A. Rauf, when the appeal came up again before him, passed an order dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Additional Commissioner against which the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document