Disposed

Haqeemunnisha and Another v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Secy. and Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2024/390/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the petitioner had not raised jurisdiction objections before the Revenue Board. Court granted liberty to apply for vacation of the interim stay order, directing the Board to decide jurisdictional objections expeditively. Petition disposed of subject to conditional liberty.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to move an application for vacation of the interim order within two weeks; Board directed to consider jurisdictional objections within four weeks.

Haqeemunnisha and Another Vs Board of Revenue… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29786

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 390 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Haqeemunnisha And Another

¶5

Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Secy. And Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Ehtesham Khan,Anil Kumar Yadav

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶8

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶9

Heard Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 and perused the material available on record.

¶10

In view of order being passed notices to private respondents stand dispensed with.

¶11

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow passed in Revision No. 2741 of 2023 preferred by the private respondents whereby they have been pleased to admit the revision and also stayed the orders dated 16.08.2022 and 30.08.2023 passed by the Tehsildar, Karchhana Prayagraj as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur, Prayagraj.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that in pursuance to the notice issued by the Board of Revenue, the petitioners have put in appearance in the aforesaid revision but has yet to file the objections. The main ground of learned counsel for the petitioners to the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is that in exercise of powers under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the Board of Revenue

¶13

would not have any jurisdiction to entertain the present revision passed against the order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur, Prayagraj who had exercised appellate powers under Section 210 of the Act of 1901 passed the impugned order dated 30.10.2023. He submits that the revision before the Board of Revenue would be maintainable only in case where no appeal lies or where appeal lies but has not been preferred. While in the present case, the private respondents have exhausted their rights of appeal and consequently, the revision preferred under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 would not be maintainable.

¶14

Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand, have opposed the writ petition and submits that a bare perusal of Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 would clearly indicate that there is no bar for filing a revision against the appellate orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur, Prayagraj. It was further submitted that the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 is an interim order and the petitioners has not filed any objection, it is open for him to raise all the grounds including the ground of maintainability and jurisdiction before the Board of Revenue itself.

¶15

In light of the above, after hearing learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not yet raised the objections regarding the jurisdiction before the Board of Revenue and in case such an objection is raised, it would be obligatory on behalf of the Board of Revenue to hear and pass appropriate orders on the jurisdiction before hearing the case on merits.

¶16

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance of the petitioner would be substantially addressed in case he is granted liberty to move an application for vacation

¶17

of the order dated 30.10.2023 where it would be open for him to raise the ground of jurisdiction and the Board of Revenue may be directed to hear and decide the objection expeditiously.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondents do not object to the prayer made by the petitioner, consequently, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application for vacation of the interim order dated 30.10.2023 and also have the liberty to take all the grounds including the ground of jurisdiction, and in case such an application is moved within two weeks, the Board of Revenue shall consider and decide the application within four weeks thereafter in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned, if there is no legal impediment.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioners undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue. The petitioners shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition is disposed of.

¶21

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 15.4.2024 Virendra

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Haqeemunnisha and Another v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Secy. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haqeemunnisha and Another v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Secy. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramawati Devi vs Civil Judge(J.D.) Kaiserganj, Dist. Bahraich and 9 Others

Gurmohan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Kheri and 3 Others

Surjan vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman and 10 Others

Ramchandra and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Lakhimpur Kheri and 2 Others

Ram Kalap @ Ram Kalp Yadav Vs Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Room No. 29, Sultanpur and Another

Smt. Chandrvati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others