Ram Swaroop v. Board of Revenue and Others has held that the proceedings under Rule

4. The applications are, accordingly, disposed of. Order on Writ Petition

1. Brief facts of the case are that against the auction sale, an objection under Section 285(I) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules) was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Commissioner which was registered as Objection No.6R/81-82. The aforementioned objection under Rule 285(I) was heard by the Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 24.11.1982 dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner under Rule 285(I) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules. Against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 24.11.1982, revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was filed before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Revision No.183 L.R./82-83. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.3.1986 dismissed the revision as not maintainable. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the orders passed by opposite party nos. 1 & 2 be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari."

2. This Court entertained the matter and granted interim protection on 7.5.1986. In pursuance of the order dated 7.5.1986, parties have exchanged affidavit.

3. It is mentioned in the writ petition that the Board of Revenue has illegally dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that auction sale was conducted in violation of the mandatory provisions contained under U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as Rules framed thereunder. It is further pleaded that the Additional Commissioner has dismissed the objection filed by petitioner under Rule 285(I) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules in the arbitrary manner.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing of respondent nos. 7/1 to 7/4 submitted that objection under Rule 285(I) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules has been rightly dismissed and the revision has also been dismissed in proper manner, as such, no interference is required in the matter.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the objection under Rule 285(I) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner and the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable.

7. The full Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1990 RD 291, Ram Swaroop vs. Board of Revenue and Others has held that the proceedings under Rule 285(I) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules are judicial proceeding, as such, revision against the order passed in the proceedings under Rule 285- I of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules is maintainable. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered by full Bench of this Court in Ram Swaroop (supra) is as under: "Rule 285-1 as extracted above indicates that the Commissioner is to adjudicate certain rights and interest of the parties in respect of immovable property. The Commissioner is to decide as to whether there was any irregularity which was material in nature or there was mistake in publishing of conducting the sale for which purpose a procedure is prescribed and in case the Commissioner comes to the conclusion that such things existed, he is to set aside the sale. The order so passed by the Commissioner has been made final. Obviously the proceedings so taken by the Commissioner are judicial in nature. Though it could be said that the Commissioner is not sitting as a court to decide the same, and there is no specific provision in this behalf, the Commissioner will be deemed to be sitting in the court and the order passed by the Commissioner will be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under Sec. 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which is analogous to Sec. 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. A single Judge of this Court took the view that there was some inconsistency in Indu Engineering and Textiles Ltd. case (supra) and earlier decision on the same point in Sudama Prasad v. State of U.P. (4) and referred the matter to the higher bench and this is how the division bench took cognizance of the case in Nihal Singh v. Board of Revenue (5). In Indu Engineering's case (supra). the question was whether Sec. 5 of Indian Limitation Act applies to these proceedings and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to enlarge the Lime during which objection can be filed. There is no dispute that Indian Limitation Act will apply before any court of law. The Division Bench was of the view that there was no inconsistency in the two judgments. The Division Bench did not take notice of the fact that this matter has been referred to the larger bench. The Bench was of the view that no revision lies to the Board of Revenue under Sec. 219 of Land Revenue Act. Obviously in regard to the proceedings under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder, revision will lie under Sec. 333 of the Act and not u/Sec. 219 of Land Revenue Act and it appears that the Division Bench did not notice this distinction. The Division Bench took into consideration paragraph 911 and 912 of Revenue Manual and held that these paragraphs do not in terms apply to the instant case but the classification made in the Revenue Manual is on the whole sound and according to the division Bench hearing of case before the Commissioner assumes the character of quasi-judicial in nature and the same does not alter the essence of proceedings as a whole. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Commissioner while deciding the objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules will be a 'court' as such and the proceedings taken before him will be deemed judicial proceedings as such and the Commissioner who otherwise is a court under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act will be deemed to be a court. We are accordingly of the view that the cases of Indu Engineering (supra) and Nihal Singh (supra) were not correctly decided and are over-ruled."

8. Considering the ratio of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Swaroop (supra), the impugned revisional order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 13.3.1986 passed by respondent no.1/Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.

10. The writ petition stands allowed in part and the matter is remitted back before the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow/respondent no.1 to register the revision on its original number and decide the same afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 C.Prakash CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. The applications are, accordingly, disposed of. Order on Writ Petition

1. Brief facts of the case are that against the auction sale, an objection under Section 285(I) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules) was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Commissioner which was registered as Objection No.6R/81-82. The aforementioned objection under Rule 285(I) was heard by the Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 24.11.1982 dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner under Rule 285(I) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules. Against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 24.11.1982, revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was filed before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Revision No.183 L.R./82-83. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.3.1986 dismissed the revision as not maintainable. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the orders passed by opposite party nos. 1 & 2 be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari."

2. This Court entertained the matter and granted interim protection on 7.5.1986. In pursuance of the order dated 7.5.1986, parties have exchanged affidavit.

3. It is mentioned in the writ petition that the Board of Revenue has illegally dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that auction sale was conducted in violation of the mandatory provisions contained under U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as Rules framed thereunder. It is further pleaded that the Additional Commissioner has dismissed the objection filed by petitioner under Rule 285(I) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules in the arbitrary manner.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing of respondent nos. 7/1 to 7/4 submitted that objection under Rule 285(I) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules has been rightly dismissed and the revision has also been dismissed in proper manner, as such, no interference is required in the matter.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the objection under Rule 285(I) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner and the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable.

7. The full Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1990 RD 291, Ram Swaroop vs. Board of Revenue and Others has held that the proceedings under Rule 285(I) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules are judicial proceeding, as such, revision against the order passed in the proceedings under Rule 285- I of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules is maintainable. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered by full Bench of this Court in Ram Swaroop (supra) is as under: "Rule 285-1 as extracted above indicates that the Commissioner is to adjudicate certain rights and interest of the parties in respect of immovable property. The Commissioner is to decide as to whether there was any irregularity which was material in nature or there was mistake in publishing of conducting the sale for which purpose a procedure is prescribed and in case the Commissioner comes to the conclusion that such things existed, he is to set aside the sale. The order so passed by the Commissioner has been made final. Obviously the proceedings so taken by the Commissioner are judicial in nature. Though it could be said that the Commissioner is not sitting as a court to decide the same, and there is no specific provision in this behalf, the Commissioner will be deemed to be sitting in the court and the order passed by the Commissioner will be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under Sec. 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which is analogous to Sec. 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. A single Judge of this Court took the view that there was some inconsistency in Indu Engineering and Textiles Ltd. case (supra) and earlier decision on the same point in Sudama Prasad v. State of U.P. (4) and referred the matter to the higher bench and this is how the division bench took cognizance of the case in Nihal Singh v. Board of Revenue (5). In Indu Engineering's case (supra). the question was whether Sec. 5 of Indian Limitation Act applies to these proceedings and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to enlarge the Lime during which objection can be filed. There is no dispute that Indian Limitation Act will apply before any court of law. The Division Bench was of the view that there was no inconsistency in the two judgments. The Division Bench did not take notice of the fact that this matter has been referred to the larger bench. The Bench was of the view that no revision lies to the Board of Revenue under Sec. 219 of Land Revenue Act. Obviously in regard to the proceedings under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder, revision will lie under Sec. 333 of the Act and not u/Sec. 219 of Land Revenue Act and it appears that the Division Bench did not notice this distinction. The Division Bench took into consideration paragraph 911 and 912 of Revenue Manual and held that these paragraphs do not in terms apply to the instant case but the classification made in the Revenue Manual is on the whole sound and according to the division Bench hearing of case before the Commissioner assumes the character of quasi-judicial in nature and the same does not alter the essence of proceedings as a whole. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Commissioner while deciding the objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules will be a 'court' as such and the proceedings taken before him will be deemed judicial proceedings as such and the Commissioner who otherwise is a court under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act will be deemed to be a court. We are accordingly of the view that the cases of Indu Engineering (supra) and Nihal Singh (supra) were not correctly decided and are over-ruled."

8. Considering the ratio of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Swaroop (supra), the impugned revisional order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 13.3.1986 passed by respondent no.1/Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.

10. The writ petition stands allowed in part and the matter is remitted back before the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow/respondent no.1 to register the revision on its original number and decide the same afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 C.Prakash CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad