Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar And 4 Others vs The Board Of Revenue Up At Allahabad And ... on 28 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96420
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1885 of 2024
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar And 4 Others
Respondent :- The Board Of Revenue Up At Allahabad And 15 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bimla Prasad,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Praveen Kumar Giri,Ram Sharan Singh,Ramjee Yadav,Vivek Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed for the following relief:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and for quashing of the judgment and order dated 21.3.2024 passed by respondent no. 1 in Case No. REV / 273/ 2023 (Computerized Case No. AL2023147000273), Raj Kumar and others Vs. Kashi Nath and others contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the judgment and order dated 15.12.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 in Case No. 00337 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. C202114000000337), Kashi Nath and others Vs. Raj Kumar and others contained as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition."
3. Brief facts of the case are that Suit No. 102 of 2010 was filed by the father of the petitioner under Section 229-B claiming that his name has wrongly been left over Arazi No. 78 and the entry may be corrected and he may be declared as bhumidhar with transferable right. The aforesaid suit was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 06.03.2019 holding the suit as not maintainable with a further finding that the petitioner should have obtained the relief under relevant provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner which was allowed and the matter was remanded with liberty to the petitioner to move an amendment application and directing the trial court to decide the suit in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing and opportunity to lead evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an amendment application and the same was allowed and the suit was converted into a suit under Section 33/39 of Land Revenue Code read with Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The aforesaid suit/application was ultimately decided in favour of the petitioner by judgment and order dated 25.01.2021 passed by the trial court. Against this order, the private respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner and the same was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial court once again by order dated 15.12.2022. Against the order dated 15.12.2022, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and the same was dismissed by order dated 21.03.2024.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner in earlier round of litigation with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for amendment in the suit which was accordingly done by the petitioner, no illegality has been committed by the trial court in decreeing the suit.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be decreed merely on the basis of a report of Lekhpal.
6. Be as it may be, since the suit has filed under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, the view taken by the trial court that the suit is not maintainable and the petitioner should have filed an appropriate application under the provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act for correction of revenue entry, is erroneous. Further the order passed by the appellate court remanding the matter with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate amendment application is equally erroneous. The appellate court by its order dated 15.12.2022 has remanded the matter to the trial court to decide afresh and since since both the parties are litigating and has appeared before the court below, it would be in the interest of justice that the suit itself be decided as suit under Section 229-B and not as proceedings under Section 33/39 of Land Revenue Code after giving an opportunity to file written statement to the respondents and thereafter framing relevant issues based on the pleadings of the parties and also providing a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence to prove their case.
7. The matter is remitted to the trial court to consider and decide the proceedings under Section 229-B in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing as well as opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case to all the concerned parties.
8. Since both the parties have agreed, it is directed that they may appear before the trial court on 22.07.2024 and after exchange the relevant pleadings, if any, and the trial court shall make every endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year, from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as well as opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.5.2024
Ved Prakash
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
