Smt. Sarla Devi vs The Board Of Revenue And 2 Ors.
2019 Latest Caselaw 5522 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 70019 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Sarla Devi
 
Respondent :- The Board Of Revenue And 2 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivnashu Kashyap,G.P. Gupta,H.M. Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava,Ram Lakhan Kashyap
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ajai Kumar Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, the counsel for respondent no. 3.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 27.9.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad dismissing Restoration Case No. 27 of 2011-12 instituted by the petitioner.

The restoration application instituting the aforesaid restoration case was filed by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 3.10.2006 whereby Revision No. 44 of 1997-98 was dismissed in default by the Board of Revenue and for hearing the revision on merits. The restoration application was time barred in as much as it was filed in 2012, therefore, a delay condonation application was also filed by the petitioner explaining the delay in filing the restoration application. In his affidavit filed along with the restoration application and the delay condonation application, the petitioner stated that he had no information regarding the order dated 3.10.2006 as the file was misplaced in the office of the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue without considering the explanation given by the petitioner has held that the delay in filing the restoration application has not been satisfactorily explained and the restoration application had no merits and consequently dismissed the restoration application.

A reading of the order dated 27.9.2013 shows that the same is a non-speaking order in as much as no reasons have been given in the same for not accepting the explanation of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 27.9.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to be quashed.

However, as the matter pending before the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 44 of 1997-98 relates to the title of the petitioner over the disputed plots and the revision arises out of proceedings registered under Section 167 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, it would be futile to remand back the matter to the Board of Revenue to re-consider the restoration application. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, the order dated 27.9.2013 as well as the order dated 3.10.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue are, hereby, quashed.

The matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue to decide Revision No. 44 of 1997-98 on merits within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 8.7.2019

Satyam