Allowed

Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma and Another v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2018WRIB/44504/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge writ petition challenging a Board of Revenue order quashed for lack of notice, relying on Ravi Shankar Tripathi. Petition allowed and matter remanded to the Board to decide on merits after notice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed and the order dated 2/5 July, 1999 is quashed. Matter remanded to the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad to decide the Revision on merits after issuing notices.

Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma and Another Vs Board of… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 44504 of 1999

¶3

Petitioner :- Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma & Another Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Lucknow & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhav Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No. 1.

¶6

The facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 39 of Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1901'), which was dismissed by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 28.11.1996. Against the order dated 28.11.1996, the petitioners filed a Revision under Section 219 of the Act, 1901, which was numbered as Revision No. 15/LR/96. The said revision was allowed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 17.5.1999. Against the order dated 17.5.1999, respondent No. 2 filed a Revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, which was numbered as Revision No. 110/102/1998-99, which has been allowed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 2/5 July, 1999 on the short point that the concerned Additional Commissioner was not empowered to decide the Revision on merits, but was liable to make a reference to the Board of Revenue as under the Amended Act 20 of 1997, the concerned Additional Commissioner was not empowered to dispose of pending Revisions but could only make a reference under the unamended Act.

¶7

It is pertinent to state here that no notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order by the Board of Revenue. The order dated 2/5.7.1999 passed by Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad has been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶8

No purpose would be served to keep the present writ petition pending by issuing notice to respondent No. 2 as the matter relates to 1999 and no notice has yet been issued to respondent No. 2. The matter relates to a short question of law, which is covered by the judgement of this High Court delivered in Ravi Shankar Tripathi Vs. Board of Revenue (2017) 102 RD 229 (DB) .

¶9

In view of the judgement of this Court reported in Ravi Shankar Tripathi (Supra), the order dated 2/5 July, 1999 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad to decide the Revision No. 110/102/1998-99 on merits after issuing notices to the revisionist in the said case.

¶10

Order Date :- 17.4.2018 Anurag/-

Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma and Another v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma and Another v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Krishna Devi Vs Board of Revenue U.P. at Alld. and Others

Smt. Basanti Devi and Others Vs D.D.C. and Otthers

Bija Vs Board of Revenue and Others

Vijai Bahadur Singh Vs Board of Revenue

Abdul Salam and 2 Others Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation Muzaffarnagar and Others

Mahendra and Others Vs Smt. Gyan Devi and Others