Allowed

Sheo Kumar v. Board of Revenue, U.P. , Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024/1055/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order dismissing his recall application passed ex-parte due to date preponement without verified notice. Court set aside the order for lack of opportunity of hearing and directed Board of Revenue to rehear the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; parties directed to appear before Board of Revenue for hearing on recall application.

Sheo Kumar Vs Board of Revenue, U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20419

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1055 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sheo Kumar Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P. , Lucknow Thru. Chairman And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Som Kartik Shukla,Priyadarshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Chandra Shukla,Vinay Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Som Kartik Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Adarsh Singh holding brief of Shri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Shri Suresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 as well as learned standing counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 02.02.2022 whereby the revisional Court by preponing the date fixed in the revision has set aside the order which was assailed in the revision.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a suit was decided on the basis of a compromise, as a result, the sale-deed was cancelled by the Civil Court. Later the petitioner had moved an application for mutation and sought the name of Teekaram and Om Prakash be deleted and the name of the petitioner be incorporated in the revenue records. This was allowed by means of the order dated 25.09.2007, however, an application was moved by one Smt. Geeta and upon her application the concerned authority passed an order in her favour dated 21.08.2020. This was neither informed to the petitioner and later the same came to be assailed in a revision and the Board of Revenue allowed the said revision by means of the order dated 02.02.2022 and remanded the matter to the Court concerned to decide the matter afresh.

¶9

Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a review application and the matter was under consideration.

¶10

On 17.05.2023 when the review was listed before the Board of Revenue, none appeared for the petitioner and the matter was reserved for judgment and by means of the order dated 01.06.2023, the review application was dismissed.

¶11

The petitioner being aggrieved moved an application for recall

¶12

of the order dated 01.06.2023 and this application has been under consideration, however, the matter was listed but upon an application, the date was preponed and the application came to be dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 11.09.2023.

¶13

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the portal of the Board of Revenue as well as from the order dated 11.09.2023, it would indicate that the review application was listed on 29.09.2022, 07.12.2022, 20.12.2022, 19.01.2023 and 17.05.2023, however, from the impugned order, it would reveal that the Board of Revenue had preponed the date and dismissed the review application prior to the date fixed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to said dates in Paragraphs 25 to 33 of the writ petition and it is urged that without notice to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed.

¶15

The Court had called for the instructions and the learned standing counsel has furnished the same vide letter dated 06.03.2024 and it has been stated that the date was preponed and the information was sent to the learned counsel for the petitioner on his mobile.

¶16

Learned counsel for the private-respondents as well as learned standing counsel could not dispute the fact that there is no material to indicate that any message was conveyed to the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in the Board of Revenue.

¶17

Learned counsel for the private-respondents though opposing the petition but could not dispute the fact that there is no material on record to substantiate that the preponement of the date was communicated to the petitioner.

¶18

In light of the above, instead of considering the matter on merits, this Court is of the opinion that the parties may get their rights adjudicated before the Board of Revenue and since the order impugned has been passed behind the back of the petitioner, hence, the said order impugned is set aside. The parties shall appear before the respondent No.1 Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow on 04.04.2024, who shall consider and decide the pending application of recall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties so that the recall application is finally decided either on the said date itself or within three weeks thereafter. In case if the recall application

¶19

is allowed, naturally the review application would stand revived and in that case, the review too may be decided expeditiously within a further period of six weeks.

¶20

It is made clear that this Court has not considered the case on merits and the Board of Revenue shall decide the matter on its own merits.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed . Costs are made easy.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.3.2024 Rakesh/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sheo Kumar v. Board of Revenue, U.P. , Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheo Kumar v. Board of Revenue, U.P. , Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Vs Daya Shankar Dwivedi

Ram Sanehi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 7 Others

Jul Kamar Ahmad Khan Alias Sabbu Vs Rizwan Rafi Khan and 3 Others

Divyanshu Misra Vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Lko. and Another

Hari Prasad Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Kunda, Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Harun Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 23, Sultanpur and 4 Others