Allowed

Dhani Ram Deceased and 3 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024WRIB/2498/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's rejection of a restoration application. The court condoned the delay, set aside the impugned orders, allowed the restoration subject to costs, and directed the Board to decide the pending revision on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 13.03.2024 and 18.02.2000 set aside; restoration application allowed subject to costs of Rs. 2,000; Board of Revenue directed to decide revision on merits within three months.

Dhani Ram Deceased and 3 Others vs State of Up and 2… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110325

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2498 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dhani Ram Deceased And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar,S.S. Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Gaur

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri S.S. Sharma, counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents. Shri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.2, Land Management Committee concerned.

¶7

The writ petition has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by respondent no. 3, Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj on the restoration application registered as Case No. RES/8/2012-13 Lalitpur Computerized Case No. AL2011064599906, Dhani Ram v. Land Management Committee and another, under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act, order dated 18.02.2000 passed by Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad in Revision Petition No. 63 of 1995-96, Dhani Ram v. Land Management Committee and another, under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act, order dated 30.12.1995 passed by Commissioner, Jhansi Divison, Jhansi in Revision No. 72 of 1994-95, Dhani Ram v. State of U.P., under Section 333(A) of U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act as also the impugned judgment and order dated 25.04.1995 passed by Collector, Lalitpur in Case No. 41/93-94, State v. Dhani Ram, under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act, Village Bijree, Pargana Banpur, Tehsil Mahrauni, District Lalitpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide order dated 25.04.1995, the Collector, Lalitpur cancelled the patta of Dhani Ram, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners on false grounds. Against the order dated 25.04.1995, revision no. 72 of 1994-95 was filed but without considering the grounds raised in the revision, the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dismissed the revision vide order dated 30.12.1995. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 25.04.1995 and 30.12.1995, petitioners filed Revision Petition No. 63 of 1995-96 before the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad, but the same was dismissed without considering the case of the petitioners vide order dated

¶9

18.02.2000. Since the revision petition was wrongly dismissed, petitioners filed review application being Review Application No. 06 of 2002-03 in Revision No. 63 of 1995-96 and the review application was also dismissed for default on 21.02.2007. After knowledge of dismissal of review application, petitioners filed restoration application alongwith Section 5 application before the Board of Revenue being Restoration Application No. 08 of 201213 (RES/8/2012-13/Lalitpur, but without going into merits, the Member, Board of Revenue rejected Section 5 application and consequently dismissed the restoration application on the ground of delay vide order dated 13.03.2024.

¶10

This Court vide order dated 01.07.2024 had required this Court to explain how a second revision was maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the relevant time, the second revision was permitted and the provisions of Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950 has been subsequently amended barring a second revision by the same party. Learned counsel for the petitioners is correct in his submissions and the Court does not deem it proper to dwell into that issue.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that adequate reasons has been disclosed in the application for restoration, which has not been considered by the Board of Revenue. Attention of the Court has been invited to the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application annexed at page no. 57 of the writ petition, wherein it has been mentioned that due to lack of knowledge of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the delay has been caused.

¶12

It has also been argued that the Board of Revenue in almost identical circumstances had allowed the restoration application in another cases by imposing some costs. He submits that the impugned order rejecting the restoration application be set aside and direction be issued for deciding the revision on merits after hearing the parties.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶14

In the opinion of the Court, the dispute between the parties should be decided on merits rather than on technicalities. By rejecting the restoration application, the issues involved in the revision remain unaddressed. It would be appropriate that the issues involved are decided on merits. The respondents can be compensated by awarding some costs in their favour.

¶15

9. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed .

¶16

The orders dated 13.03.2024 and 18.02.2000 are set aside. The delay in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned. The restoration application also stands allowed, subject to costs of Rs.2,000/-, which is to be deposited by the petitioners in the office of Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad Bench within 15 days from today.

¶17

In case, petitioners do not deposit the costs before the Board of Revenue within the time allowed, they will not get benefit of this order.

¶18

The Board of Revenue is directed to proceed to decide the revision on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of service of certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 Anjali

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhani Ram Deceased and 3 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhani Ram Deceased and 3 Others v. State of Up and 2 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

Similar cases

Brij Kumar vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Mahatam Gupta vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Keshav Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Zahid vs State of Up and 9 Others

Gayasuddeen vs State of Up and 29 Others

Nand Lal vs State of Up and 6 Others