Ram Kishore v. State of U.P. and Others)
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34583 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 665 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vikramaditya Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Lok Nath Shukla, Om Prakash Pandey,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Board of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj as respondent no. 5 in the writ petition during course of the day.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. Santosh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Triapthi, learned counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha. 3. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being heard finally without inviting any counter affidavit. 4. Notice is not issued to respondent no.2 by this Court as he is also lease holder and his interest is similar to the petitioner as well as other lease holder. 5. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner along with others were granted agriculture lease in the year 2010. Proceeding for cancellation of lease has been initiated at the instance of private respondents on 3.10.2011 which was registered under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The proceeding relating to cancellation ultimately cam before Board of Revenue at the instance of respondent no.4 by way of revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in which only Suresh Chandra was impleaded and Board of Revenue allowed the revision vide order dated 7.1.2025 setting aside the orders dated 15.7.2022 and 30.6.2023 as well as remanded the matter for fresh consideration of lease. Hence this writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.1.2025 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, U.P. Prayagraj in Revision No. 2183/ 2023 (Ram Kishore Vs. State of U.P. and Others)." 6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Board of Revenue has allowed the revision under the impugned order in ex-parte manner. He further submitted that lease holders have not been impleaded in revision before Board of Revenue rather only one lease holder was impleaded but without issuing notice to the impleaded party, the revision has been allowed setting aside the order dated 15.7.2022 and 30.6.2023 as well as the matter has been remitted back before Additional District Magistrate Finance and Revenue to decide the proceeding afresh. He submitted that impugned order dated 7.1.2025 passed by Board of Revenue should be set aside and earlier order passed in favour of the petitioner should be maintained. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that Board of Revenue has rightly allowed the revision setting aside the order dated 15.7.2022 and 30.6.2023 and remitted the matter back before the Additional District Magistrate to decide the proceeding afresh. He submitted that petitioner has full opportunity to appear before the Additional District Magistrate and contest the proceeding in accordance with law rather writ petition before this Court. He further placed the earlier order passed by the Board of Revenue as well as by this Court which are annexed along with the writ petition in order to demonstrate that the order dated 15.7.2022 and 30.6.2023 were passed in arbitrary manner which have been set aside under the impugned order. He submitted that no interference is required against the order passed by Board of Revenue and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1981 Law Suit (SC) 68 Kshitish Chandra Bose Vs. Commissioner of Ranchi as well as judgement of this Court passed in Writ C No. 3282 of 1996 Ram Narayan and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Varanasi decided on 29 January 1996 in support of his argument. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed by respondent no.4 impleading the Suresh Chandra, State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha as opposite party and Board of Revenue without issuing notice to anybody allowed the revision setting aside the order dated 15.7.2022 and 30.6.2023 and remitted the matter back before the Additional District Magistrate for fresh consideration. 10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will be relevant which is as under:- "Section 210. Power to call for the records.-(1) The Board or the Commissioner may call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate Revenue Court in which no appeal lies, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding; and if such subordinate court appears to have- (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction of vested; or (c) acted in the exercise of such jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity; the Board, or the Commissioner, as the case may be may pass such order in the case as it or he thinks fit. (2) If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board or to the Commissioner, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. Explanation.—For the removal of doubt it is, hereby, declared that when an application under this section has been moved either to the Board or to the Commissioner, the application shall not be permitted to be withdrawn for the purpose of filing the application against the same order to the other of them. (3) No application under this section shall be entertained after the expiry of a period of sixty days from the date of the order sought to be revised or from the date of commencement of this Code, whichever is later.” 11. In the instant matter, Board of Revenue, U.P. Prayagraj has allowed the revision without issuing notice to private respondent. 12. It is also material that in revision, all the lease holders have not been impleaded and the revision has been allowed affecting the interest of the lease holders including petitioner. Considering the aforementioned 13. facts and circumstances, the impugned revisional order dated 7.1.2025 passed by Board of Revenue cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned revisional order dated 7.1.2025 passed by respondent no.5, Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. Writ petition stands allowed in part and matter is remitted back before the respondent no.5, Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad to register the revision on its original number. It is further directed that revisionist shall implead all the lease holders on the basis of impleadment application in the revision and decide the revision in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Vandana Y. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad