Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar And 8 Others vs Board Of Revenue Lko. Thru. Member ... on 1 August, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:51810
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 665 of 2023
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar And 8 Others
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Lko. Thru. Member Judicial Lko. And 9 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mehdi Abbas Rizvi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.10.1993, 11.03.1994 and 11.04.2023 passed by opposite party No.4/Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, Bulandshahar, opposite party No.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut and opposite party No.1/Member, Board of Revenue at Lucknow, respectively.
3. The order dated 30.10.1993 was passed in Case No.76 of 1993, (State of U.P. vs. Ram Murti and others), instituted under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") and a perusal thereof reflects that the opposite party No.4/ accepted the report dated 11.10.1993 received from the Tehsil concerned and directed the revenue officials to correct the revenue records according to the report dated 11.10.1993 and from same it also reflects that the opposite party No.2 failed to record reasons for accepting the aforesaid report .
4. It would be apt to note that opposite party No.4 had suo moto exercised the jurisdiction vested under Section 33/39 of the Act of 1901 for correcting the revenue entries/records.
5. The order dated 30.10.1993 passed in Case No.76 of 1993 was assailed by the aggrieved persons in Revision No.14/1992-93, (Kishan Lal and others vs. Shivkumar and others), which was filed under Section 218 of the Act of 1901. This revision was dismissed by the opposite party No.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Meerut Division, Meertut vide order dated 11.03.1994 on the ground that no evidence has been placed by the revisionists to show that recall application for recalling the order dated 30.10.1993 was preferred.
6. After the aforesaid, the aggrieved persons (Kishanlal, Vijay Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Gopal) preferred the revision No.R19940104005847, (Kishanlal vs. Mahesh Chandra), challenging the order(s) dated 30.10.1993 and 11.03.1994 under Section 219 of the Act of 1901.
7. By the impugned order dated 11.04.2023, which is an order of remand, the opposite party No.1/Board of Revenue, Lucknow after observing that no notice was issued to the concerned/ revisionists as also taking note of the facts that the initial orderdated 30.10.1993 was passed against dead persons by opposite party No.4/Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, Bulandshahar, interfered in the order dated 30.10.1993 and 11.03.1994 and remanded the matter back and provided liberty to the petitioners to prefer an application for restoration.
8. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present petition has been filed.
9. Impeaching the orders dated 30.10.1993, 11.03.1994 and 11.04.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initial order dated 30.10.1993 of opposite party No.4 itself was unsustainable as the same was passed against dead persons and this aspect was completely ignored while deciding the revision No.14/1992-1993 as would appear from the order dated 11.03.1994 and the revisional authority, namely the opposite party No.1/Board of Revenue, Lucknow after recording the finding to the effect that no notice was issued to the concerned /revisionists and taking note of the fact, as stated in revision, that the order dated 30.10.1993 was passed by opposite party No.4 against dead persons, interfered in the matter and remanded the matter back vide impugned order dated 11.04.2023 with liberty to petitioners to prefer an application for recall of order dated 30.10.1993. As such all the authorities under the Act of 1901 including the opposite party No.1/ Board of Revenue at Lucknow committed an error in law.
10. It is further stated that remanding the matter back with liberty to the petitioners to file an application for recall of order dated 30.10.1993 which itself was illegal rather nullity as was passed against dead persons namely, Ram Murti (expired on 04.05.1982) and Bhanu Prakash (expired on 30.09.1982), the opposite party No.1 erred in law and facts both.
11. It is further stated that in the facts of the case the appropriate course available with the Board of Revenue at Lucknow was to the effect that after setting aside the orders impugned the matter should have been remanded back to the authority concerned to proceed afresh in accordance with rules and procedure prescribed for correction of revenue records.
12. To support his submission that an order passed against dead persons would be nullity, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Kishun alias Ram Kishun (dead) through L.Rs vs. Bihari (D) by L.Rs. reported in 2005 AIR(SC) 3799.
13. Opposing the present petition, learned State Counsel stated that this is an simpliciter order of remand and also stated that on merits, nothing has been observed which can prejudice the case of the petitioner. Simpliciter order of remand should not be interfered with as it does not terminate the proceedings and right of concerned parties to place their case before the authority concerned is available. As such, no interference is required in the matter. Prayer is to dismiss the petition.
14. Considered the statement advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. Undisputed facts are to the effect that initial order dated 30.10.1993 was passed against Ram Murti and Bhanu Prakash, which as per the recital of the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 were expired on 04.05.1982 and 02.09.1982, respectively. It is settled principle of law that any order or decree passed against the dead persons would be nullity. When the order dated 30.10.1993 was passed, Ram Murit and Bhanu Prakash were not alive. Thus, the order dated 30.10.1993 itself was nullity and this aspect has not been taken note of by the opposite party No.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Division, Meerut and opposite party No.1/ Board of Revenue at Lucknow respectively.
16. In the impugned order dated 11.04.2023, opposite party No.1/Board of Revenue at Lucknow had recorded specific finding that no notice was issued to the concerned and also noticed the fact that the order dated 30.11.1993 was passed against dead persons and despite this, liberty was granted to the revisionists/petitioners to prefer an application for restoration of the case.
17. Aforesaid, to the view of this Court, is not justified in the facts of the case. The opposite party No.1, to view of this Court, after interfering in the matter ought to have remanded the matter back to theopposite party No.4/Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, Bulandshahar to pass an appropriate order afresh, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners strictly as per law.
18. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the matter requires interference.
19. Accordingly, the orders dated 30.10.1993, 11.03.1994 and 11.04.2023 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to theopposite party No.4/Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, Bulandshahar to pass appropriate orders, as per law, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
20. The proceedings, if initiated afresh, shall be concluded by the opposite party No.4, within three months.
21. The petition is allowed in above terms.
Order Date :- 1.8.2023
Raj
