(Oral order)

Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Notice on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas notice on behalf of opposite parties No. 4 and 5 has been accepted by Mr. Yogesh Singh, Advocate.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3. Since a trivial question is involved in this writ petition, as such, with the consent of parties’ counsel the writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage.

4. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 29.6.2015 passed on reference by larger Bench of the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 89/L.R./2015/District Ambedkar Nagar.

5. As per given facts of the case, the Tehsildar, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar vide order dated 12.5.2014 had decided the mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act by holding that the petitioner is not the second wife of late Abrar Husain. The orders were passed in favour of opposite parties No. 4 and 5. The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act was dismissed by Sub Divisional Officer vide judgment and order dated 29.12.2014. It was thereafter that the petitioner had preferred revision under Section 219 Land Revenue Act initially before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad on 6.1.2015 (for convenience it is mentioned as ‘first revision’). An application for withdrawal was moved on 29.1.2015. The said application was allowed and the revision was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 29.1.2015.

6. The petitioner had preferred another revision under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow on 12.1.2015 (for convenience it is mentioned as ‘second revision’). The second revision, on being filed, was directed to be listed for admission on 21.2.2015. The opposite parties No. 4 and 5 had raised objections before the Board of Revenue regarding maintainability of second revision on the ground that it is barred under Section 219 (2) of Land Revenue Act. The learned Member of Board of Revenue vide order dated 21.2.2015 had referred the matter to the larger Bench for authoritative decision as he had observed that there were conflicting judgments on the issue. It was thereafter that the larger Bench of the Board of Revenue had considered the issue in question and by the impugned order has come to conclusion that in the given facts and circumstances the second revision preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable and has accordingly dismissed the second revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and order passed by the larger Bench of Board of Revenue is patently wrong and illegal. It is submitted that amendment in Section 219 of Land Revenue Act was enacted vide U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997 with effect from 18th August, 1997. As per the amended Section 219, sub Section (2) of Land Revenue Act, which is relevant for the controversy involved in the present petition, if an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board, or to the Commissioner, or to the Additional Commissioner, or to the Collector or to the Record Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them.

8. The submission is that the first revision preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner Faizabad Division, Faizabad was withdrawn as not pressed even before the second revision was considered for admission by the Board of Revenue, as such, it cannot be said that the revision preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was not maintainable. It is submitted that the language of Sub-Section (2) of Land Revenue Act clearly provides that “no further application by same person shall be entertained by any other of them”. Emphasis is that at the time of entertainment i.e., the time when the case was considered by the Board of Revenue, it was to