Shiv Prakash Singh v. The Board Of Revenue U.P. At Prayagraj And
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3880 of 2025 Shiv Prakash @ Shiv Prakash Singh .....Petitioner(s) Versus The Board Of Revenue U.P. At Prayagraj And 21 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : Chandra Prakash Kushwaha : Achal Singh, Anil Kumar Pandey, C.S.C. Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr Chandra Prakash kushwaha, learned counsel for the
Legal Reasoning
petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Mr Shailesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Mr. Achal Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in suit for partition under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, Trial Court/ Sub Divisional Officer passed a judgement and decree dated 16.11.2022 confirming the kurra prepared by the Lekhpal and ordered for preparation for final decree. Against judgement and decree of Trial Court/ Sub Divisional Officer dated 16.11.2022, appeal has been filed on behalf of petitioner under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 09.01.2023. The caveat application is stated to be filed on 3.1.2023 in the Court of Commissioner against the judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 16.11.2022. Commissioner vide order dated 11.1.2023 granted benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act, admitted the appeal, issued notice to opposite party and stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 16.11.2022. Against order dated 11.1.2023, an appeal was filed before Board of Revenue on behalf of private respondent No.4 stating that interim order dated 11.1.2023 has 2 WRIB No. 3880 of 2025 been passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to caveator/respondent in spite of the caveat application filed on behalf of caveator/respondent in appeal. The Additional Commissioner passed the order dated 13.6.2023 by which the caveat application dated 3.1.2023 was rejected on the ground that appeal was entertained as well as interim order was granted by Commissioner as such he can not recall the order passed by Commissioner. Against two orders passed by first appellate Court, one revision was filed before Board of Revenue under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 18.08.2025 allowed the revision setting aside the order dated 13.06.2023 and remitted the matter before the first appellate court to pass the fresh order after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Hence this petition for the following relief: "(a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the judgment and order dated 18.08.2025 (Contained in Annexure No.10 to this writ petiton passed by the Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj, the respondent No.1 allowing Revision No.1975/ 2023 (Bal Govind Vs.State of U.P. and others). (b) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent sand their subordinate etc not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appeal at the instance of petitioner under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was rightly entertained and interim protection was granted by Commissioner. He submitted that caveat application filed by respondent No.4 has been rightly rejected by Additional Commissioner. He submitted that against the interim protection granted in appeal, respondent can apply for vacation of interim order rather application to recall the order passed in appeal. He submitted that against the two orders passed in appeal in place of filing two revisions, one revision was filed and Board of Revenue has 3 WRIB No. 3880 of 2025 exercised the jurisdiction setting aside both the orders which is illegal. He submitted that order passed by Board of Revenue should be set aside and first appellate court should be directed to decide the pending appeal in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that caveat application was filed against judgement and decree of the Trial Court as such unless opportunity of hearing is given to the caveator, interim order in appeal cannot be granted. He submitted that caveat application filed by respondent No.4 has been dismissed on misconceived ground, accordingly Board of Revenue has rightly exercised jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed for admission and stay in appeal. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order passed by Board of Revenue in revision. 5. I have considered argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that suit for partition under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has bean decided by the Trial Court and appeal under section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, filed on behalf of petitioner is pending before first appellate Court. There is also no dispute about the fact that the caveat application filed by respondent No.4 has been rejected by first appellate Court but Board of Revenue has allowed the revision of the respondent No.4 setting aside the order entertaining the appeal and granting interim protection in appeal. 7. Since caveat application was filed on behalf of respondent No.4 before filing of appeal under section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as such law requires that opportunity of hearing should be afforded to counsel for the caveator before grant of interim order in appeal. Board of Revenue 4 WRIB No. 3880 of 2025 has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in setting aside the order of admission and grant of interim order in appeal under section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against judgement/ order dated 18.08.2025 passed by Board of Revenue. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. However first appellate Court/Commissioner/Additional Commissioner is directed to pass fresh order for admission of appeal as well as interim relief in appeal affording proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant of appeal and as well as opposite parties, who have filed caveat in appeal under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the first appellate Court. September 23, 2025 PS*/Vandana (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad