Allahabad High Court
Bhagwanta And Others vs Board Of Revenue U.P. Ald. And ... on 2 April, 2013
Bench: Ran Vijai Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 24805 of 2001
Petitioner :- Bhagwanta And Others
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Ald. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Gupta,M.A.Mishra,Ram Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,V.K.Singh
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel.
Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.5.2001 passed by learned Member Board of Revenue in Restoration Application No.70 of 2000-2001 in Review Application No. 30 of 2000-2001 in Revision No. 41 of 1997-1998.
The Revision No. 41 of 1997-1998 was filed before the Board of Revenue against the judgment and order dated 29.1.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner Jhansi Division Jhansi in Appeal No. 114/137/96-97. The revision before the Additional Commissioner was filed by the present petitioners against the order dated 8.5.1997 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ataraa, District Banda by which the proposal to grant lease was not accepted. The aforesaid revision was dismissed on 29.1.1998. Challenging this order, the petitioners have filed Revision No.41/97-98 before the Board of Revenue. The said revision was allowed on 10.1.2001. The respondents, herein, has filed Review Application No. 302000-2001 for reviewing the order dated 10.1.2001. The said review application was rejected on 12.4.2001. Thereafter, the respondent, herein, has filed Restoration Application No. 70/2000-2001. In the said restoration application, impugned order has been passed. For appreciation, the order passed by learned Member Board of Revenue is reproduced hereinunder :-
izkFkZuk i= fn0 09&05&2001 ij lqukA
izfri+{k o vfHkys[k ,d lIrkg esa fn0 3&8&2001 ds fy, vkgwr gks ftl frfFk rd vkns'k fn0 10&1&2001 o 12&4&2001 dk fdz;kUo;u 1986 ¼12½ ,0,y0vkj0 i`"B
393 ij mn?k`r O;oLFkk ds ifjisz{; esa LFkfxr jgsxkA
g0 viBuh; 15&5&2001
¼lR; izfrfyfi½
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the revision was dismissed and the review application has also been rejected, there was no occasion to pass the impugned order on the first date of presentation of the restoration application without there being any notice to the petitioners. This Court, after hearing both the counsel, has passed a detailed order and formulated two questions. For appreciation, the relevant portion of the order is quoted hereinunder:-
The questions would be; (i) as to whether, in view of the amendment made under section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the second revision could be maintained and the order passed in the second revision by the learned Member, Board of Revenue can be sustained or not; and (ii) as to whether once the review application was rejected on a restoration application, without there being any notice to the other side, the operation of the order of the main judgment passed in revision as well as rejecting the application for review could be stayed or not.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners have filed Revision No. 41/97-98 before the Board of Revenue under Section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short ' the Act') on 9.6.1998. Sub-Section 2 of Section 333 of the Act which has been brought in force vide U.P. Act No.20 of 1997 contains that if an application under this Section has been moved by any person either to Board or to Commission or to Additional Commissioner, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them. It has been pointed out by learned Standing Counsel that U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997 came into effect on 23.5.1997 whereas the revision before the Board has been filed by the petitioners on 9.6.1998 i.e. much after commencement of the Act No. 20 of 1997.
From the bare reading of Sub-Section 2 of Section 333 of the Act as has
been noticed put an embargo to entertain the revision under this Section on the instance of the person who has filed another application under this Section before any of the court lower and hierarchy than the court where the present application has been filed. Here in this case, the petitioners have already availed remedy of revision before the Additional Commissioner under Section 333 of the Act, therefore, the revision on the instance of the petitioners before the Board of Revenue was not maintainable. Hence each and every outcome either the final order passed in revision or any order passed thereafter are of no avail as it has been settled by numerous decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court that the question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and it can neither be assumed nor presumed nor conferred or acquired by acquiescence of the parties.It is also well settled that order without jurisdiction is a nullity. Reference may be given to the judgment of the Apex Court in Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization Vs. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (9) SCC 619, Sarup Singh and Another Vs. Union of India and Another 2011 (11) SCC 198 and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Shri Jawahar Inter College and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others in Special Appeal No. 164 of 2012 decided on 25.1.2012.
In view of foregoing discussions, I refuse to interfere with this order particularly in the circumstances when the entire proceedings have been held to be without jurisdiction. However, passing of this order will not preclude the petitioners to avail such other remedies available to them under law.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.4.2013
Pratima
