Ajay Rastogi Vs Krishna Gopal and 10 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ajay Rastogi Vs Krishna Gopal and 10 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in entertaining the revision even though no right had yet been decided amongst the parties and the merits, including the issue of limitation, were yet to be considered (question raised through counsel for the petitioner's submission). +1 more

Court's answer

This Court was not inclined to entertain the petition; the petitioner was left open to approach the revisional court and raise all his contentions as may be available to him in law, and such averments/submissions shall be considered and decided by respondent no.11 in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The Board of Revenue shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible after affording full opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

It was made clear that the Court had not examined the case of either of the parties on merits.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - B No. 16 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; decided 10.1.2025 by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.) - The petitioner assailed the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision, whereby a revision preferred by private respondent no.1 was admitted and the mutation proceedings pending before the Naib Tehsildar (subject to an appellate-court remand of 20.08.2024 directing consideration of the issue of delay and a fresh decision after opportunity to lead evidence) were stayed, the next date fixed being 18.02.2025. Held: as the matter, including the issue of limitation, was yet to be decided and the impugned order had only admitted the revision, the Court was not inclined to entertain the petition; the petitioner was left open to approach the revisional court and raise all contentions available to him in law, such submissions to be considered and decided by respondent no.11 in accordance with law. It was expressly made clear that the Court had not examined the case of either party on merits, and the Board of Revenue was directed to decide the matter expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. Petition disposed of.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1846

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 16 of 2025

Petitioner :- Ajay Rastogi Respondent :- Krishna Gopal And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the State respondent nos.10 and 11 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mutation proceedings were underway. An exparte order was passed against which an application for recall was moved which was allowed whereafter an appeal was preferred. The appellate court after hearing the parties by means of the order dated 20.08.2024 remanded the matter to the Court of Naib Tehsildar with a direction to consider the issue of delay as well as after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead evidence, the matter be decided afresh.

It is urged that in furtherance of the said order an application for seeking condonation of delay was specifically moved before the Naib Tehsildar in the interim period. The private respondent no.1 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue wherein the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 has been passed. As a consequence the proceedings which are pending before the Naib Tehsildar have been stayed.

Submission is that where the issue is yet to be considered on merits including the issue of limitation, in such circumstances, the Board of Revenue was not justified in entertaining the revision as no right has yet been decided amongst the parties.

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it is not disputed that the order dated 09.12.2024 was passed after hearing the parties concerned. The record indicates that the petitioner had already putting in appearance and still has an opportunity to ventilate his grievance before the revisional court where the matter is

pending.

Considering the aforesaid facts that the matter is yet to be decided and by means of the impugned order only the revision has been admitted fixing 18.02.2025 as a next date, in such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the revisional court and raise all his contentions as may be available to him in law and needless to say, in case, such averments/submissions are made the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent no.11 in accordance with law.

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and Board of Revenue shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible after affording full opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Harshita

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