Judicial review is appropriate when administrative bodies fail to engage substantively with evidence and legal arguments, especially in cases involving alleged patent illegalities.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard Sri R. C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for respondents No. 6 and 8 and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel assisted by Sri Rishabh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 9.

2. The present proceedings are apparently initiated on a complaint filed by one Vishambhar Singh in regard to alleged forged entries in revenue records in regard to the Gata No. 419 in favour of the petitioner. Few enquiries were conducted on said complaint and finally a suit was got instituted under Section 33 /39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

3. In the proceedings of the said suit, complainant Vishambhar Singh and petitioner herein filed their respective evidence in the form of various documents which are mentioned in the order also and finally the S.D.M. Ballia, by order dated 03.03.2014, has accepted the application of the complainant in part and it was directed that name of present petitioner be expunged from the revenue records. For reference the relevant parts of the order is reproduced hereinafter :-

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above referred order filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue raising inter alia various grounds on law as well as on facts and written submission was also filed. The Board of Revenue by order dated 07.08.2024 rejected the revision petition and upheld the order impugned therein. For ready reference relevant part there of is mentioned hereinafter :-

5. The aforesaid referred both the orders dated 03.03.2014 and 07.08.2014 are impugned in the present petition.

6. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel assisted by Sri Rishabh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 9 has made a preliminary objection that challenge to the proceedings arising under Section 39 /39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 by way of a writ petition is not maintainable and referred judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the Case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2021 SCC Online 802. Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Narayan Singh and Charan Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner Meerut , 1999 3 AWC 1931 and Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue 1956 0 AIILJ 807 that since said proceedings are summary in nature and it does not create any right of title therefore, challenge to any order passed therein in a writ petition is not maintainable.

7. Sri R. C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for petitioner has opposed the above submissions and submits that if it is shown that order impugned is perverse and a revision petition is being dismissed without even considering various documents placed on record as well as a detailed written statements and that impugned order passed was beyond jurisdiction, a writ petition is still maintainable before this Court. In support of his submission learned Senior Counsel refers a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. Anilbhai Jayantbhai Patel 2006 (8) SCC 200 i.e. the scope and extent of power of judicial review of the High Court contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India would vary from case to case of the order, nature, relevant statute and also the other relevant factors including nature of power exercised by public authority namely, whether the power and statutory quasi judicial or administrative and judicial review is available, where there is a procedural impropriety.

8. Learned Senior Counsel referred a judgment of coordinate Bench in Krishna Singh and Another Vs. Commissioner Go