JUDGMENT

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

Heard Shri Mehdi Abbas Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.S. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Ms. Seema Devi, learned counsel for the intervener assisted by Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.5/intervener. Said vakalatnama is taken on record.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.06.1999 (Annexure No. 1) passed by opposite party no. 1 by which he has remanded the revision to the Commissioner for fresh decision under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as "Land Revenue Act") as it was prevailing prior to 18.08.1997.

3. While assailing the aforesaid impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the opposite party no.1 has committed manifest error of law in remanding back the case for fresh decision to the Commissioner in accordance with Section 218 of the Land Revenue Act as it was applicable prior to 18.08.1997. Further, since Section 218 of the Land Revenue Act has been repealed by the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997 with effect from 18.08.1997, any proceeding under such Section cannot be instituted now.

4. Shri Mehdi Abbas Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the opposite party no. 1 has no legal authority to supersede the legal provisions of the Land Revenue Act by its quasi judicial order and to prescribe incorrect, confusing and wrong jurisdiction. Further, the opposite party no. 1 has wrongly held that the order dated 16.04.1999 passed by the learned Commissioner is without jurisdiction but in fact the said order is quite just, proper and legal. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29.06.1999 is completely illegal, void, contrary to the law and natural justice. On the first date of admission, this Court has passed the order dated 17.08.1999, which reads as under:-

"Admit.

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2.

Notice on behalf of the opposite party no.1 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel and Shri R.N. Gupta, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party no.3."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in view of decision of this Court In Re; Shri Ram v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and Others , 1999 (1) JCLR 1010 , the issue in question is no more res integra and has held as under:-

"In view of this transitary provision only references which were pending before the Board of Revenue were saved and revisions pending before the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner were not saved, and as such the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner ought to have decided the revisions pending before them on 18.08.1997 under Section 219 of the Act. Under the circumstances the judgement passed by the Board of Revenue on 11.01.1999 cannot be sustained.

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 11.01.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition) is set aside. The petitioner is directed to move an application before the Board of Revenue about maintainability of the revision which shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law."

6. Notably, on account of two conflicting views, one In Re; Kali Shanker Dwivedi v. Board of Revenue & Ors., 2000 (18) LCD 1401 and another in re; Shri Ram (supra), the issue was referred before the Division Bench In Re; Ravi Shanker Tripathi v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow through its Chairman & Ors. , 2007 (1) ADJ 23 . So as to resolve the controversy in question, paras 5, 12 and 18 in re; Ra