Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Mahendra Singh and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue, Allahabad and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) No. 49499 of 2015
Decided On : 20-09-2022
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Review Application - Section 229B - 229B - 5, Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure - The court discussed the provisions of Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court highlighted the importance of hearing both parties and the limitations of review jurisdiction, ultimately setting aside the review application and restoring the original order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed suits under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which were decreed in the second appeal by the Board of Revenue. The State and Gaon Sabha filed a restoration application after 22 years, which was allowed, leading to a writ petition challenging the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the review application was allowed without proper consideration of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the judgment passed on merit after hearing both parties. The court set aside the review application and restored the original order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the condonation of delay in filing the review application, the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue, and the consideration of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of hearing both parties and the limitations of review jurisdiction, citing relevant case law and legal provisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order were set aside, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Varma and Sri Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Krishna Mohan, Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3-Gaon Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are petitioners filed two suits under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act on the basis of lease deed executed in their favour by the erstwhile Zamindar on 22.6.1948 in respect of Khata No. 38 area 10.04 acres. Another suit was filed by Ayodhya. Suits were dismissed by the trial Court against which two appeals were filed i.e. Appeal Nos. 798/312 and 398/213 (Mahendra Singh vs. Gaon Sabha and Others). Additional Commissioner vide separate judgment dated 29.8.1984 dismissed both the appeals. Petitioner no. 1 as well as father of the petitioner no. 2 filed two second appeals which were numbered as Second Appeal No. 3 and 4 of 1984-85. Board of Revenue vide judgment and order dated 11.7.1990 allowed both the appeals and decreed both the suits. Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. were parties to the suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and they had full notice and knowledge of the entire proceeding. Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. filed Restoration Application No. 229 of 2009-10 (State vs. Ayodhya Prasad and Others), learned member of Board of Revenue recorded the finding that judgment dated 11.7.1990 was not ex-parte, as such, the same should be treated as review petition and should be placed before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, by the same order effect and operation of the order dated 11.7.1990 has been stayed. The matter was placed before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue and they held that matter be placed before single member as the application is not review application and it can be treated only as restoration application, accordingly, the matter was again placed before single member of the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 18.6.1996 rejected the restoration application dated 11.7.1990 filed by State and Gaon Sabha. On 19.3.2013, two review applications were filed by DGC (Revenue) which were registered as Review Application Nos. 1/2012-13 and 2/2012-13. Along with review application, the application for condonation of delay and affidavit were also filed, the deponent of the affidavit filed in the support of the review application as well as delay condonation application was not Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, he was clerk of DGC (Revenue), who has filed his affidavit, review application were placed before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue vide order dated 25.1.2013. Petitioners filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64148 of 2013 against the order of Board of Revenue dated 25.1.2013. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2013 with direction to decide the review application within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Respondent no. 4, Ravindra also filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5377 of 2013 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 19.9.2013 with a clear finding that there is no explanation of delay of 22 years. Division Bench of the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 15.7.2015 allowed both the review applications setting aside the order dated 11.7.1990 passed in Second Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 and second appeal was restored to its original number, hence this writ petition. This Court while entertaining the writ petition at the admission stage has passed the following interim order dated 8.9.2015:
List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
Till the next date of listing the operat
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the provisions of review jurisdiction and ensuring proper consideration of the merits of a case before allowing a rev....
Review jurisdiction cannot set aside proper findings without clear error; procedural adherence is essential in appeals.
Review proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal; they must adhere strictly to legal standards, allowing for correction of apparent errors only, not retrials of decisions.
The court ruled that procedural delays should be examined contextually, emphasizing the need for justice over strict adherence to timelines, allowing case merits to guide decisions.
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
The court affirmed that the trial court's decree granting bhumidhari rights was valid, and the Board of Revenue acted within its jurisdiction in upholding this decision.
The Additional Commissioner lacks the statutory authority to review his own orders under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, leading to the annulment of subsequent orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
