Barabanki (Arun Kumar and Others v. U.P. Government through Collector, Barabanki, Computerized Case No. R

3. The order has been challenged on the following grounds :- (A) The arguments were heard on the application seeking interim protection and the order has been passed on the merits of the case. (i) In regard to ground aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the order dated

30.07.2024 passed in WRIT - B No. 671 of 2024 (Vijay Kumar And Others Vs. U.P. Board Of Revenue, Lucknow Thru. Chairman And Others) whereby this Court interfered in the order dated 27.05.2024 being a non- speaking order and remanded the matter back fixing

27.08.2024 before Board of Revenue, Lucknow for deciding the application for interim relief afresh. The relevant portion of the order dated 30.07.2024 reads as under :- "Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta learned counsel for the private respondent has very fairly submitted that in so far as the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 is concerned it cannot be disputed that it contains no reason for grant of interim relief. He has suggested that in case if any direction is issued to the Court concerned to decide the application afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, he shall has no objection. Sri Aftab Ahmad learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is agreeable to the aforesaid submissions. Considering the aforesaid consensus arrived at between the parties and also noticing that the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 is apparently non speaking and accordingly it is set aside. The parties shall appear before the Board of Revenue 27.08.2024, which is date fixed, on the which date, the Board of Revenue after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the application for interim relief fresh in case if the same is not possible then within two weeks, thereafter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the order has been set aside solely on the ground that it is non speaking. With the aforesaid observations the petition is allowed." (ii) Based upon the above quoted order dated 30.07.2024, it is stated that after the order of this Court dated 30.07.2024 placed before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow, the order(s) dated 02.09.2024, 01.10.2024 and 29.11.2024 were passed by Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Lucknow (in short "Board"). (a) The order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Board reads as under :- " पतरवलन पसरशर कक गई। ननगररननकररर कक नवदरन अधधवकर शन शनशभभषण नमशर रथर नवपकन कक ओर सक नवदरन अधधवकर शन बन०एल०शशकलर कक सशनर गयर । पतरवलन आदकश हकरश नदनरनक 01-10- 2024 कक पसरशर कक जरय।" (b) The order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Board reads as under :- " पतरवलन कर पररशनलन नकयर गयर। पतरवलन आदकश हकरश सशरनकर कक जररन हह।" (c) The order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Board reads as under :- " करयररधधकय एवन समयरभरव कक कररण आदकश नहह हक सकर पतरवलन पशनत आदकश हकरश नदनरनक 16-12-2024 कक पसरशर कक जरय।" (iii) A bare perusal of the order of this Court dated

30.07.2024 indicates that the same relates to deciding the application seeking interim relief and it has been pleaded in the present petition that before the Board arguments were heard on the application of interim relief but from the order(s) dated 02.09.2024, 10.10.2024 and 29.11.2024, quoted above, it is evident that the parties were heard on merits. (iv) For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the ground (A) has no force. (B) The issue of maintainability was dealt with by the respondent no.2/Collector/District Magistrate while passing the order dated

18.03.2024 which was impugned in revision before the Board (revisional authority) in which the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 has been passed. (i) Aforesaid ground has also no force. It is for the reason that the respondent no.2 while passing the order dated

18.03.2024 indicated the facts of application dated

06.12.2023 wherein the issue of maintainability was raised. However, on the issue of maintainability no finding has been recorded. (ii) In addition to above, for the purpose of interfering in the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 18.03.2024 passed in exercise of power under Section 28 of the Act of 1901, the Board (revisional authority) observed that the concerned revenue officer, was not examined to prove the report and in this regard, the Bard (revisional authority) has also placed on the judgment reported in 1998 RD Page 36 and 2008 RD Page 75 and undisputed position is that the revenue official was not examined.

4. For the reason aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. The order has been challenged on the following grounds :- (A) The arguments were heard on the application seeking interim protection and the order has been passed on the merits of the case. (i) In regard to ground aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the order dated

30.07.2024 passed in WRIT - B No. 671 of 2024 (Vijay Kumar And Others Vs. U.P. Board Of Revenue, Lucknow Thru. Chairman And Others) whereby this Court interfered in the order dated 27.05.2024 being a non- speaking order and remanded the matter back fixing

27.08.2024 before Board of Revenue, Lucknow for deciding the application for interim relief afresh. The relevant portion of the order dated 30.07.2024 reads as under :- "Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta learned counsel for the private respondent has very fairly submitted that in so far as the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 is concerned it cannot be disputed that it contains no reason for grant of interim relief. He has suggested that in case if any direction is issued to the Court concerned to decide the application afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, he shall has no objection. Sri Aftab Ahmad learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is agreeable to the aforesaid submissions. Considering the aforesaid consensus arrived at between the parties and also noticing that the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 is apparently non speaking and accordingly it is set aside. The parties shall appear before the Board of Revenue 27.08.2024, which is date fixed, on the which date, the Board of Revenue after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the application for interim relief fresh in case if the same is not possible then within two weeks, thereafter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the order has been set aside solely on the ground that it is non speaking. With the aforesaid observations the petition is allowed." (ii) Based upon the above quoted order dated 30.07.2024, it is stated that after the order of this Court dated 30.07.2024 placed before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow, the order(s) dated 02.09.2024, 01.10.2024 and 29.11.2024 were passed by Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Lucknow (in short "Board"). (a) The order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Board reads as under :- " पतरवलन पसरशर कक गई। ननगररननकररर कक नवदरन अधधवकर शन शनशभभषण नमशर रथर नवपकन कक ओर सक नवदरन अधधवकर शन बन०एल०शशकलर कक सशनर गयर । पतरवलन आदकश हकरश नदनरनक 01-10- 2024 कक पसरशर कक जरय।" (b) The order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Board reads as under :- " पतरवलन कर पररशनलन नकयर गयर। पतरवलन आदकश हकरश सशरनकर कक जररन हह।" (c) The order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Board reads as under :- " करयररधधकय एवन समयरभरव कक कररण आदकश नहह हक सकर पतरवलन पशनत आदकश हकरश नदनरनक 16-12-2024 कक पसरशर कक जरय।" (iii) A bare perusal of the order of this Court dated

30.07.2024 indicates that the same relates to deciding the application seeking interim relief and it has been pleaded in the present petition that before the Board arguments were heard on the application of interim relief but from the order(s) dated 02.09.2024, 10.10.2024 and 29.11.2024, quoted above, it is evident that the parties were heard on merits. (iv) For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the ground (A) has no force. (B) The issue of maintainability was dealt with by the respondent no.2/Collector/District Magistrate while passing the order dated

18.03.2024 which was impugned in revision before the Board (revisional authority) in which the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 has been passed. (i) Aforesaid ground has also no force. It is for the reason that the respondent no.2 while passing the order dated

18.03.2024 indicated the facts of application dated

06.12.2023 wherein the issue of maintainability was raised. However, on the issue of maintainability no finding has been recorded. (ii) In addition to above, for the purpose of interfering in the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 18.03.2024 passed in exercise of power under Section 28 of the Act of 1901, the Board (revisional authority) observed that the concerned revenue officer, was not examined to prove the report and in this regard, the Bard (revisional authority) has also placed on the judgment reported in 1998 RD Page 36 and 2008 RD Page 75 and undisputed position is that the revenue official was not examined.

4. For the reason aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench