Smt. Umman Bibi vs Board Of Revenue U.P. Lucknow And ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 1393 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

[A.F.R.] 
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4174 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Umman Bibi
 
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Lucknow And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Atul Dixit
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yogesh Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.

(Oral order)

Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 3 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 4 and 5 has been accepted by Mr. Yogesh Singh, Advocate.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Since a trivial question is involved in this writ petition, as such, with the consent of parties' counsel the writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage.

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 29.06.2015 passed on reference by larger Bench of the Board of Revenue in Revision No.89/L.R./2015/District Ambedkar Nagar.

As per given facts of the case, the Tehsildar, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar vide order dated 12.05.2014 had decided the mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act by holding that the petitioner is not the second wife of late Abrar Husain. The orders were passed in favour of opposite parties no.4 and 5. The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act was dismissed by Sub Divisional Officer vide judgment and order dated 29.12.2014. It was thereafter that the petitioner had preferred revision under Section 219 Land Revenue Act initially before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad on 6.1.2015 (for convenience it is mentioned as 'first revision'). An application for withdrawal was moved on 29.1.2015. The said application was allowed and the revision was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 29.1.2015.

The petitioner had preferred another revision under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow on 12.1.2015 (for convenience it is mentioned as 'second revision'). The second revision, on being filed, was directed to be listed for admission on 21.2.2015. The opposite parties no.4 and 5 had raised objections before the Board of Revenue regarding maintainability of second revision on the ground that it is barred under Section 219 (2) of Land Revenue Act. The learned Member of Board of Revenue vide order dated 21.2.2015 had referred the matter to the larger Bench for authoritative decision as he had observed that there were conflicting judgments on the issue. It was thereafter that the larger Bench of the Board of Revenue had considered the issue in question and by the impugned order has come to conclusion that in the given facts and circumstances the second revision preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable and has accordingly dismissed the second revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and order passed by the larger Bench of Board of Revenue is patently wrong and illegal. It is submitted that amendment in Section 219 of Land Revenue Act was enacted vide U.P. Act No.20 of 1997 with effect from 18th August, 1997. As per the amended Section 219, sub Section (2) of Land Revenue Act, which is relevant for the controversy involved in the present petition, if an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board, or to the Commissioner, or to the Additional Commissioner, or to the Collector or to the Record Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them.

The submission is that the first revision preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner Faizabad Division, Faizabad was withdrawn as not pressed even before the second revision was considered for admission by the Board of Revenue, as such, it cannot be said that the revision preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was not maintainable. It is submitted that the language of Sub-Section (2) of Land Revenue Act clearly provides that "no further application by same person shall be entertained by any other of them". Emphasis is that at the time of entertainment i.e., the time when the case was considered by the Board of Revenue, it was to be seen whether any revision against the same impugned order was pending before any other authority or not. Since the petitioner had already got the first revision dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed at the time when the second revision was considered for admission by the Board of Revenue, as such, the bar imposed under Sectin 219 (2) of Land Revenue Act will not be attracted.

Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Yogesh Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 4 and 5, on the other hand submits that it is irrelevant as to when the second revision was considered for admission. The question is as to whether the second revision preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was at all maintainable or not. It is submitted that Sub-Section (2) of Section 219 of Land Revenue Act clearly provides that no second application for revision can be moved by any person, in case he has already preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue or the Commissioner, or the Additional Commissioner, or the Collector or to the Record Officer or to the Settlement Officer, against the same order.

I have considered the submissions made by parties counsel and gone through the records.

The sole question involved in this writ petition is whether the revision preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue could be treated as a second revision against the impugned order dated 12.5.2015 passed by Tehsildar and order dated 29.12.2014 passed by Sub Divisional Officer and whether the revision preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was maintainable when the petitioner had already withdrawn the earlier revision (first revision).

In order to decide the aforesaid question, it is relevant to first examine the relevant provision i.e., Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. For convenience Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act reads as under:-

"[219. Revision.-(1) The Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer may call for the record of any case decided or proceeding held by any revenue Court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding held and if such subordinate revenue Court appears to have-

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,

the Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, pass such order in the case as he thinks fit.

(2) If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board, or to the Commissioner, or to the Additional Commissioner, or the Collector or to the Record Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them.]"

Before amendment in Section 219 of Land Revenue act the revision was first preferred before the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, as the case may be, under Section 218 of Land Revenue Act and thereafter revision could be filed under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act. Vide U.P. Act No.20 of 1997 Section 218 has been omitted and Section 219 has been amended. Now second revision is barred. Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 219 of Land Revenue Act it has been specifically provided that if an application for revision has been moved by any person either to the Board or to the Commissioner, or to the Additional Commissioner or to the Collector, or to the Record Officer, or to the Settlement Officer no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them, meaning thereby that in case any person has preferred any revision under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act, he is not entitled to file any other revision against the same order before any other authority. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that against the order passed in appeal under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act dated 29.12.2014, he had first preferred a revision under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad. This revision was preferred on 6.1.2015. During pendency of first revision, petitioner had preferred second revision against the same order before the Board of Revenue on 12.1.2015. It was thereafter that the petitioner had moved an application for withdrawal of first revision before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad on 29.1.2015 which was allowed and the first revision was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 29.1.2015. The second revision preferred by the petitioner came up for admission on 21.2.2015. At that time an objection regarding maintainability of this revision was raised by the opposite parties. Learned Member of Board of Revenue considering the submissions had referred the matter to the larger Bench and it was thereafter that by the impugned order the larger Bench of Board of Revenue has held that the second revision preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable.

So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the second revision preferred by the petitioner had come up for admission before the Board of Revenue on 21.2.2015 and at that time no revision was pending, as such, it cannot be treated to be a second revision and Board of Revenue has wrongly come to conclusion that it was not maintainable is concerned, suffice is to observe that the provision under Section 219 (2) of Land Revenue Act are very much clear. It is specifically provided that if an application for revision has been preferred before any of the authorities given, no further application by the same person shall be entertained, meaning thereby that once first revision was preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed as withdrawn without seeking any liberty to file revision again, the second revision was not maintainable. Even in the application for withdrawal the petitioner had not disclosed that he has preferred another revision before the Board of Revenue and do not want to pursue this revision. The application for withdrawal was filed simply on the ground that petitioner does not want to pursue the revision and it may be dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner had not sought any liberty to file fresh revision, the first revision was, as such, dismissed as withdrawn without providing any liberty to file another revision. It is immaterial whether the second revision preferred by the petitioner had come up for admission on 21.2.2015 i.e., at the time when the first revision was already dismissed as withdrawn. Since no liberty was sought or given while withdrawing the first revision, as such, I am of the considered opinion that the second revision preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable. The larger Bench of the Board of Revenue by the impugned judgment and order has rightly come to conclusion that the second revision by the petitioner before Board of Revenue was not maintainable. The larger Bench was also right in dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner as there was no question of remanding or sending the matter back to the authority who had made the reference to the larger Bench, once the larger Bench of the Board of Revenue had come to conclusion that the second revision was not maintainable.

In view of above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

However, it is made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to avail any legal remedy available to her in law. In case any such recourse is adopted, the matter may be considered and decided without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.

Order Date :- 22.7.2015

Ram.

(Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)