Ram Asre And Another vs Board Of Revenue And 30 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 5525 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1688 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Asre And Another
 
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 30 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Chand Umrao
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

By means of the impugned order dated 31.10.2018, the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad has allowed an application in pending Revision No. 9 of 1998-99 permitting respondent nos. 5 to 26 to this petition to be impleaded. The impleadment has been granted by the Board of Revenue on ground that these parties were parties to the proceedings before the Courts below, and, therefore, they have an interest in this revision which arises from the fact that they were all complainants in original proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. They have been left out to be impleaded in the revision, and, therefore, impleadment has been granted by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for one the application has been made at a belated stage which ought not to have been entertained, and secondly, the application has been made mala fide in order to delay a decision of the revision which is already of the year 1998-99.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.C. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf Gaon Sabha, this Court finds the order granting impleadment is in favour of a proper party, if not a necessary party, as the said parties were parties to the original proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act from which this revision arises. It appears that in the course of proceedings at some stage they were omitted from the array, and by the impugned order they have been brought back. There is no illegality in the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue. However, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this belated impleadment has been sought to delay proceedings of revision cannot be said to be ill founded.

Under the circumstances, while declining to disturb the impugned order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 9 of 1998-99, the Board are directed to decide the said revision within a period of three months next from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, without granting any adjournments to either of the parties, including the newly added respondents.

The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 8.7.2019

Deepak