Reserved HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Tribhawan Goyal …..Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others …..Respondents Counsel for Petitioner : Prem Sagar Verma, Tripathi B.G.

Bhai Counsel for Respondents : Anupam Kulshreshtha, C.S.C., Devesh Kumar Sharma In Chamber HON’BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This petition is directed against an order of interim stay and interim injunction dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj in Revision No.1039/2025/ Mathura. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, taking a plea that this petition is not maintainable.

2. We do not propose to decide that objection for the present. The reason is that when this matter was taken up on 22.04.2025, elaborate submissions were advanced before us on the point of widespread caveat mismanagement said to be rife in the Board of Revenue at Prayagraj, Lucknow and the two Circuit Benches of the Board at Agra and Meerut.

3. The revisionist before the Board, upon whose motion the revision was admitted to hearing and an interim stay and injunction granted by the impugned order, was Ashok Kumar, respondent No.5. The complaint was that without serving the petitioner with a notice of the revision, despite a caveat being entered, the motion to admit the revision to hearing was heard, the revision admitted and interim orders granted. We, accordingly, summoned respondent No.5, Ashok Kumar and learned Counsel appearing on his behalf before the Board of Revenue, Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari and Mr. Manish Pandey, Advocates in person to ascertain facts. In the affidavit that was filed by Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, it is averred in paragraph Nos.3 to 16 as follows:

“3. That this Hon'ble Court passed an order inter alia dated 10.04.2025 calling upon the deponent to appear before this Hon'ble Court on 22.04.2025 at 2.00 P.M. The true copy of the order dated 10.04.2025 is being annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE NO.-1 to this affidavit.

4. That it is submitted here that the revision was filed by Ashok Kumar son of Ramhari Lal, one of the respondent no.5 in the writ petition, against the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Tehsildar, Sadar, District Mathura in Case No. 879 of 2020 (Computerized Case No. T202001500100879); Keshav Dev Kedia Vs. Lalaram, before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj, which was registered as Revision No. 1039 of 2025 (Computerized Case No.AL20250150001039); Ashok Kumar Vs. Keshav Dev Kedia (Deceased) & others. The revision was filed on 19.03.2025 in the registry of the Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj, which was uploaded on the website on 21.03.2025.

5. That the procedure of fling in the Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj is that when memo of appeal or revision, as the case may be, is filed in the registry and there is no procedure of reporting similar to that of Hon'ble High Court. In the Hon'ble High Court, if the caveat is reported then the petition is returned to the presenting counsel, for service to the caveator counsel. But in the Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj, the caveat is marked by the registry on the memo and then the file is sent to the concerned divisional clerk without giving any intimation to the counsel of the appellant or revisionist, as the case may be, about the caveat and as such the counsel has no occasion to have the knowledge of the caveat. The divisional Clerk makes endorsement on the margin of the order sheet about the caveat. But again no intimation or information is given to the counsel about the caveat. The divisional Clerk mark the caveat just a day before sending the file in the court and as such at this stage there is no occasion for the counsels to get the knowledge of the caveat.

6. That normally the counsel of the revisionist or appellant, as the case may be, get the knowledge of the caveat for the first time, when the matter is presented before the court on the date fixed and thereafter, the court asks the counsel of the appellant or revisionist to