Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GAON SABHA (GRAM PANCHAYAT) THRU' ITS PRADHAN versus BOARD OF REVENUE & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gaon Sabha (Gram Panchayat) Thru' Its Pradhan v. Board Of Revenue & Others - WRIT - B No. 61612 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7406 (13 December 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                    Court No.5.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61612 of  2005.

Gaon Sabha (Gram Panchayat)

Village Sarsa Tehsil Soraon,

District Allahabad ......... ......... ........... Petitioner

Versus

Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh

at Allahabad and others ............ ......... ..Respondents

AND

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 74742 of 2005.

Ram Naresh and another  ......... ......... ........... Petitioners

Versus

Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh

at Allahabad and others ............ ......... ..Respondents

-----------

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

Shri Anupam Kulshrestha has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 6 to 15 in writ petition no. 61612 of 2005 and respondent nos. 5 to 14 in writ petition no. 74742 of 2005, which may be taken on record.

Learned counsel for the parties agree that these writ petitions may be disposed of finally today.

It appears that Smt. Chamela Devi (respondent no.15), mother of Phool Chand, Shyam Babu and Guddu respondent nos. 6 to 8 in writ petition no. 61612 of 200 prayed that her name be recorded as bhumidhar with non-transferable right under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. The application was allowed by the Pargana Adhikari by order dated 31.1.1991 against which the Gaon Sabha filed an application for restoration which was dismissed by respondent no.3 Sub Divisional Officer, Soraon District Allahabad by order dated 14.1.1994. Two revisions were filed against the order; one by Gaon Sabha   (petitioner in writ petition no. 61612 of 2005) and the other by Ram Naresh and Harish Chand (petitioners in writ petition no. 74742 of 2005). The revisions were  dismissed  by  order dated  28.1.1997  passed by the Additional Commissioner,

- 2 -

Allahabad Division, Allahabad. Against these two orders two separate revisions were filed; one by Gaon Sabha and the other by Ram Naresh and Harish Chand, The Board of Revenue by its order dated 27.12.1997 allowed the revisions and set the order of the Additional Commissioner and of the Sub Divisional Officer. Against these orders respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 in writ petition no. 61612 of 2005  (respondent nos. 5, 6  & 7 in writ petition no. 74742 of 2005) successors of Chamela Devi  filed a review  application and the respondent no.15 Chameli Devi filed a restoration application. By order dated 15.12.2004 the review application was allowed by a Single Member of the Board of Revenue other than the onewho had decided the revisions. Against this order two restoration applications were filed one by the Gaon Sabha and the other by Ram Naresh and Harish Chand which have been dismissed by order dated 8.7.2005.

I have heard Shri V.K.Singh learned counsel who has appeared for Gaon Sabha and Shri Anupam Kulshreshtha   respondent nos. 6 to 15 in writ petition no. 61612 of 2005 (respondent nos. 5 to 14 in writ petition no. 74742 of 2005) and Shri V.K. Nagaich learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition no. 74742 of 2005, which has been filed by Ram Naresh and Harish Chand against the same orders dated 8.7.2005 and 15.12.2004 f the Board of Revenue as is assailed in writ petition no. 61612 of 2005.

Two submissions were made by the counsel for the petitioner. The first submission is that the order was exparte without notice to them and the restoration application has been rejected on the ground that it was belated although the delay was sufficiently explained.  The other submission is that the order of the Board of Revenue on the review application is without jurisdiction inasmuch as it was passed by a Single Member of the Board of Revenue.  Reliance is placed upon Section 220 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which gives power to the Board of Revenue to review and alter its order. Sub Section (3) of Section 220 of the Act upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance is quoted below:-

- 3 -

"220. Power Board to review and alter its order and decrees -  (1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) xxx xx xxx

(3) Members not empower to alter each other's order. - A single member vested with all or any of the powers of the Board shall not have power to alter or reverse a decree or order passed by the Board or any member other than himself."

Shri Anupam Kulshrestha counsel for the respondent concedes to this legal position that a Single Member of the Board of Revenue was not competent to review the order of another member of the Board as to alter or modify it.  The order of review pressed by the single member was therefore without jurisdiction On the other point also I am satisfied that the application could not in the facts and circumstances have been rejected on the ground of delay of barely two months. The delay was explained in the affidavit along with Section 5 application in support of the recall application in which in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 it has been stated that the notice was not served and as such the Gaon Sabha could not know the date fixed for hearing.  Petitioners  Ram Naresh and  Harish Chandra have also annexed their application supported by the affidavit for condoning the delay along with their writ petition no. 74742 of 2005 as Anenxure-6 taking similar ground. In the facts and circumstances the delay was liable to be condoned.  In the circumstances both the writ petitions are allowed. The orders of the Board of Revenue dated 15.12.2004 and 8.7.2005 are quashed. The Board of Revenue shall decide the matter afresh. The case shall be heard by at least two members of the Board. The Board shall try to dispose of the case expeditiously, if possible within a period of three months from the date a certified coy of this order is filed before it by either of the parties.

The writ petitions are thus allowed .

13.12.2005

sn


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.