Allahabad High Court
Smt. Vimlesh And Others vs Board Of Revenue, Lucknow Thru. Member ... on 29 May, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41182
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 534 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt. Vimlesh And Others
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, Lucknow Thru. Member And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Pandey,Saurabh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Moni Yadav,Raj Kumar Singh,Rajendra Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri V. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2, Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan for respondent No.3 and Sri Raj Kumar Singh for respondent No.s 4, 5,7 and 9.
2. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record.
3. On the basis of the information given by learned counsel for the respondent about demise of respondent No.10, learned counsel for the petitioners has moved application for amendment in the array of the parties seeking deletion of opposite party No.10 and substituting her legal heirs as respondents.
4. No objection to the amendment application has been filed by learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, the application for amendment is allowed. The petitioner is directed to make necessary incorporation in the memo of the petition during the course of day.
5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present dispute pertains to the proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation of khasra No.542 area 0.250 hectare, khasra No.543 are 0.1010 hectare and khasra No.547 area 0.1010 hectare situated in Village Chandraval, Pargana and Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow on an application of opposite party No.3 (Chunni Lal) dated 27.1.2021. The said application under Section 24 was allowed by means of order dated 4.1.2024 in favour of Chunni Lal.
6. Against the ex-parte order dated 4.1.2024 the petitioners had filed appeal before Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow assailing the validity of the said order. The said appeal was admitted for hearing, the order dated 4.1.2024 was stayed and the matter was listed for hearing by means of order dated 9.2.2024. The opposite parties on receiving the said notice in appeal No.439 of 2024 preferred by the petitioner instead filed revision before Board of Revenue assailing the validity of the order dated 9.2.2024. The Board of Revenue allowed the revision and quashed the order dated 9.2.2024 and remanded the matter back to Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow for deciding afresh.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceedings before Board of Revenue was not maintainable in as much as Additional Commissioner had only admitted the appeal preferred by the petitioner and during pendency of the appeal had passed an interim order protecting the rights of the petitioner and there was no adjudication to any of the issues and consequently none of the orders was adjudicated upon and in absence of decision in the matter revison under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code would not be maintainable. He has also relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Daya Ram Vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and five others dated 16.5.2024 in Writ C No.4387 of 2024 as well as in the case of Ashutosh Shukla Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Devi Patan Mandal Gonda & Ors passed in Misc. Single Case No. - 25975 of 2019 decided on 20.9.2019 to support his contentions.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, do not dispute the legal position with regard to maintainability of the revision but submits that in any case the appeal has been admitted the same shall be decided on merits by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow and consequently submits that they will appear before the appellate court and file their application for impleadment as well as counter affidavit to the appeal preferred by the petitioner. It is further stated that they do not have any objection in case the said appeal is decided on merits expeditiously within the time fixed by this Court.
9. Accordingly, in light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned dated 7.5.2024 passed by Board of Revenue was without jurisdiction and the same was decided even without issuing notices to the opposite parties in violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly set aside.
10. In light of the fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration the respondents would be at liberty to move appropriate application for impleadment within next three weeks along with their objection / counter affidavit. The appellate authority shall proceed to consider and decide the said appeal, expeditiously say within six months thereafter in case there is no legal impediment in accordance with law.
11. The parties have assured this Court that they will cooperate in the proceedings before the appellate court and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.
12. It is made clear that in case the proceedings are unnecessarily prolonged then the order for expeditious disposal shall not be available to the parties.
13. With aforesaid observations and directions the petition stands disposed of.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 29.5.2024
RKM.
