Allahabad High Court
Smt. Poonam Dewedi vs Board Of Revenue Lucknow Thru ... on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 21
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 31448 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Poonam Dewedi
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Lucknow Thru Chairman And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Singh,Chandan Srivastava,Ranjan Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Virendra Pratap Yadav,Yogendra Nath Yadav
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
List of cases is being revised. None appears for the private respondent though as per the record notices were issued by means of order dated 16.11.2019 whereby a detailed order was passed staying the operation of the impugned order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue.
As per office report dated 09.01.2023, the respondents are duly served and they are represented by Shri Virendra Pratap Yadav and Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav whose name are printed in the cause list. However, they are not put in appearance. In view of the aforesaid, the Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Ranjan Shukla.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Lucknow whereby the Second Appeal No.2141 of 2019 was admitted for hearing without formulating substantial question of law.
Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court in its order dated 16.11.2019 had stayed the operation of the order dated 09.10.2019. It is further urged that because of the interim order, the appeal itself is pending without any progress and as such the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the proceedings are pending and if at all the second appeal is to be heard, it is to be heard on the substantial question of law which is to be formulated by the court concerned.
Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and from the perusal of the material on record including the impugned order dated 09.10.2019, it appears that the private respondent had preferred a second appeal against the judgment dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate which was affirmed in appeal by the court of Commissioner by means of judgement dated 14.08.2019 from a suit arising under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.
It is further submitted that the respondent no.1 while taking up the second appeal passed the impugned order dated 09.10.2019 admitting the appeal for hearing and directing the parties to maintain status quo. The pith and substance of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Section 341 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, the second appeal before the Board of Revenue is akin to an appeal under Section 100 CPC and as such the same can be heard only on a substantial question of law. The aforesaid proposition is well settled to be disputed and apparently the submission of the counsel for the petitioner appears to have forced.
Noticing the fact that the petitioner was the caveator before the Board of Revenue and only at the initial stage the appeal was admitted without formulating the substantial question of law and an interim order was granted hence this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 09.10.2019 be set aside and the second appeal shall be heard on admission after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and in case if the respondent no.1 finds that the matter requires admission, then appropriately the substantial question of law be formulated and thereafter the proceedings be carried out in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 09.10.2019 is set aside. The parties shall appear before the Board of Revenue on 06.02.2013, on which date, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the appellant as well as the caveators, the matter shall be heard again on admission and order be passed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 10.1.2023
ank
