High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jeet Pal Singh v. Board Of Revenue And Others - WRIT - B No. - 59634 of 2007  RD-AH 18672 (6 December 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59634 of 2007
Jeet Pal Singh
Board of Revenue, U. P. at Lucknow and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2.
In view of the order proposed to be passed hereunder, I do not consider it necessary to put private respondents no. 3 and 4 to notice.
Proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act between the parties travelled up to Board of Revenue in the form of revisions filed by the respondents no. 3 and 4. Vide order dated 24.4.2001, Board of Revenue allowed the revisions. An application seeking review of the said order was filed by predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner which was dismissed vide order dated 29.4.2002 which was put to challenge before this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29111 of 2002. This Court vide order dated 7.12.2006 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 24.4.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue by which revisions filed by the contesting respondents was allowed the case was remanded back to Board of Revenue to decide the revisions afresh in accordance with law. When the proceedings re-opened before the Board of Revenue after remand made by this Court, an order dated 7.11.2007 which is under challenge in this petition has been passed directing the counsel representing the opposite party before the Board of Revenue to seek clarification from the Court in as much as no direction has been issued with respect to the order dated 29.4.2002 whereby review application filed on behalf of petitioner was rejected by the Board of Revenue.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since by the order dated 29.4.2002 review application filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected as such the order dated 24.4.2001 allowing the revisions filed by the respondents was intact which was challenged before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29111 of 2002 and was set aside and the writ petition was allowed and in view of the aforesaid fact, no clarification is required. It has further been urged that in the garb of seeking clarification from this Court, the matter has remained pending for almost an year since the order of remand was passed. There appears to be force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed, the order against which review was being sought remained intact and same has been set aside by this Court the Board of Revenue was under obligation to decide the revisions afresh in accordance with law and in accordance with the directions contained in the remand order.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands finally disposed of with direction to Board of Revenue to decide the revisions pending before it in accordance with law as well as in accordance with the direction contained in the remand order dated 7.12.2006.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.