High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chunni Lal v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1451 of 2006  RD-AH 19562 (20 November 2006)
Special Appeal No. 1451 of 2006,
Chunni Lal ........... Appellant
State of U.P. and others ........... Respondents.
Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ.
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for private respondents as well as the learned standing counsel.
This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.11.2006 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner appellant has remedy of filing a revision before the authority under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order which was impugned in the writ petition was passed by Sub Divisional Officer cancelling the fishery lease. He submits that the said order was not revisable. He further submits that the Full Bench judgement relied by learned Single Judge has not been correctly interpreted. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to paragraph 34 of the Full Bench judgement in Ram Kumar & others Vs. State of U.P. & others; 2005(99) RD 823.
The learned counsel, appearing for the private respondents, has not been able to dispute the proposition that the order of Sub Divisional Officer is not revisable.
We have considered the submissions and perused the record.
The learned single Judge has relied upon paragraph 34 of the Full Bench judgment Ram Kumar's case (supra). In the said paragraph the Full Bench referred to an earlier view of a learned single Judge in Man Singh and others Vs. Board of Revenue and others; 1994(1) CRC 53. The relevant portion of the said paragraph is extracted below:
" 34. In Man Singh's case (supra) the learned Single Judge took the view that order of cancellation passed by Collector is amenable to revisional jurisdiction under sections 333 and 333-A of 1950 Act. The learned Single Judge in Man Singh's case (supra) also took the view that the order of Sub Divisional Officer cancelling or refusing to cancel the lease under the relevant Government orders although open to judicial review under Article 226 but is neither appealable nor revisable under 1950 Act.
The view of the learned Single Judge in Man Singh's case (supra) has been approved by the Full Bench in paragraph 36 of the judgment which is extracted below:-
"36. The case of Dhulabhai decided by the Supreme Court has to be read in the light of subsequent decision in the case of Mafat Lal v. Union India. The decision given in Man Singh's case (supra) does not require any reconsideration. The question No. 5 is answered accordingly."
In view of the judgment of the Full Bench it is clear that the order of Sub Divisional Officer cancelling or refusing to cancel the lease under the relevant Government orders although open to judicial review under Article 226 but is neither appealable nor revisable under Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
In above view of the matter, the appellant has no remedy of filing a revision against the order of Sub Divisional Officer and the writ petition was required to be heard on merit.
In view of the foregoing discussions, we set-aside the order dated 3.11.2006 dismissing the writ petition. The writ petition be heard by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law.
The appeal is allowed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.