The court established the power of review by the Board of Revenue under Section 273 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and clarified that the dismissal of a writ petition did not bar the statutory remedy of review before the Board of Revenue, U.P.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and Sri Himanshu Pandey, for respondents-4 to 7 and Sri Brij Kumar Yadav, for respondent-8 .

2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Board of Revenue U.P. dated 10.12.2013, entertaining the review application filed by respondents-4 to 7, in Revision No. 2 of 2009-2010 decided on 13.05.2010, arising out of proceedings under Section 161 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. Plot 381 (area 0.11 acre) of village Manpura, tahsil Bharthana, district Etawah was reserved for manure pit and plot 382 was reserved for chak road during consolidation. Land Management Committee, through resolution dated 08.07.1994 allotted an area of 20 squire meter of plot 381 to Komal Singh (the petitioner) for manure pit. Babu Singh, Ram Singh, Shyam Singh, Shri Krishna Singh and Mulayam Singh, resident of the village were also allotted some area of plot 381, separately for manure pit. Dilasa Ram and others (respondents-2 to 7) filed an application (registered as Case No. 2) under Section 161 of the Act, for exchange of the plot 381 and 382 from their land of plots 383 and 384. It was alleged that village abadi lies in plot 380 as such manure pit be shifted toward east from plot 381 to make the atmosphere of abadi more hygienic. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharthana, Etawah by order dated 09.06.1997 rejected the exchange application. However, by order dated 19.07.1997, earlier order dated 09.06.1997 was set aside and the case was restored and exchange application was allowed. By this exchange, chak road has been shifted towards west in plot 381, manure pits were shifted toward eastern side in plots 383 and 384.

4. Komal Singh filed an application dated 13.06.2008 for recall of the order dated 19.07.1997. Respondents-2 to 7 filed an objection and stated that the application was highly time barred but no application for condonation of delay was filed along with it. Exchange was made in public interest and was made after hearing counsel for Gaon Sabha. Komal Singh has no personal grievances and recall application filed by him was not maintainable. He had knowledge of the impugned order from very beginning and there was no cause for condonation of inordinate delay. Recall application was heard by Sub-Divisional Officer, who by order dated 06.04.2009 held that the order dated 19.07.1997 was passed on merit after hearing the parties. Recall application was filed with an inordinate delay of more than 10 years and no cause was shown for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the recall application. On these findings recall application was rejected, by order dated 06.04.2009.

5. Komal Singh filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 24 of 2009) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by order dated 23.09.2009 held that land of manure pit is a public utility land and falls in the category of the land mentioned under Section 132 of the Act, which cannot be exchanged on the application of private party in proceeding under Section 161 of the Act. Although the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner by Land Management Committee but he or other allottees were neither impleaded as party nor notice of the proceeding was given to them. On these findings the appeal was allowed and order dated 19.07.1997 and 06.04.2009 were set aside and the matter was remitted to Sub-Division Officer to follow the further action in accordance of the observations made in the order. Thereafter, Sub-Divisional Officer issued parwana amaldaramad dated 23.12.2009 restoring position prior to the order dated 19.07.1997 in the record.

6. Dilasa Ram and Mahaveer Singh (respondents-2 and 3) filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 2 of 2009-2010) against the aforesaid order dated 23.09.2009 before Board of Revenue U.P. Subsequently, an application was filed for tr