Vishwa Nath Singh And Another vs Board Of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru. Chairman

1. Heard Sri Lakhi Chand Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Saligram Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 alongwith Sri Tushar Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5.

2. Dispute in the present case pertains to boundary dispute which was raised by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khalilabad, Sant Kabir Nagar. In the said application notices were issued under Section 41 and the authority proceeded under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by allowing the claim of the petitioner by means of order dated 26.03.2018.

3. In the order dated 26.032018, it has been recorded that the case was instituted after application dated 31.10.1995 was filed by the petitioners on which report from the Revenue Inspector was sought for by order dated 19.06.1996. On 20.03.2003, another order was passed and report as well as Field Book were produced before the revenue Court and objections were also invited from the opposite parties. The said objections were decided on 28.02.2006, but again orders were passed for fixation of stone and matter was again referred to the Tehsil Authorities to submit 2 WRIB No. 854 of 2025 report on 06.06.2013. It is recorded that several objections were filed by the opposite parties and the authority proceeded to conclude the proceedings in the light of report submitted on 08.06.2013.

4. It is noticed that neither the merits of the case has been touched nor the objections were discussed or considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and accordingly private respondents preferred an appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back for decision afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties by order dated 20.11.2024.

5. While remanding the said matter the Additional Commissioner had noticed that the trial Court did not consider any of the objections raised by the private respondents and had decided the case only on the basis of reports placed before him by the revenue authorities. He was of the considered view that the trial Court would have duly considered and decided the objections raised by the opposite parties before proceeding to pass orders, relying upon the reports submitted by the revenue authorities.

6. Against the appellate order dated 20.11.2024, the petitioner had filed revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, after considering the entire facts, rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner by order dated 30.06.2025, holding that there was no infirmity in the orders passed by the appellate authority in remanding the matter for decision afresh by the trial Court.

7. Accordingly, in the present writ petition order dated 30.06.2025 as well as 20.11.2024 have been assailed. The petitioners have submitted that the dispute is pending since 1991 and till date the matter has not attained finality. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the proceedings were initiated in 1991 when only provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act were operational and U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had not been enacted. Subsequently, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 also came into force. The private respondents proceeded under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is erroneous, as they should have proceeded on the basis of pre-existing law rather than proceeding under the U.P. Revenue 3 WRIB No. 854 of 2025 Code, 2006.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the matter up to some length contends that there is no difference in the procedure described under the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 and U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the impugned orders and have stated that the matter has been remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh. The appellate authority has discussed and stated that the trial Court did not consider any of the objections or grounds raised by the opposite parties and has allowed the application of the petitioners.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the appellate Court as well as revisional Court remanding the matter back to the trial Court for consideration afresh.

11. From the perusal of order of Sub Divisional Magistrate it is evident that is a non speaking order where he merely noted the list of dates on which the reports were called for from the revenue authorities. This Court also finds that objections filed by the opposite parties have not been considered.

12. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made above, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned orders. The writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

13. However, it is noticed that in the remand proceedings, the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall proceed to consider and pass orders only after hearing rival contentions, considering the fact that numerous reports are available on record with regard to the disput in question.

14. Both the parties before this Court have consented to cooperate in the proceedings and no fresh material or report is further required for adjudication on the application which shall be decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

15. In the light of the above, Sub Divisional Magistrate shall proceed to 4 WRIB No. 854 of 2025 consider and decide the application of the petitioner under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, expeditiously, say within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

16. The parties before this Court undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

17. Subject to the aforesaid directions, present writ petition stands disposed of. September 10, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Lakhi Chand Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Saligram Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 alongwith Sri Tushar Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5.

2. Dispute in the present case pertains to boundary dispute which was raised by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khalilabad, Sant Kabir Nagar. In the said application notices were issued under Section 41 and the authority proceeded under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by allowing the claim of the petitioner by means of order dated 26.03.2018.

3. In the order dated 26.032018, it has been recorded that the case was instituted after application dated 31.10.1995 was filed by the petitioners on which report from the Revenue Inspector was sought for by order dated 19.06.1996. On 20.03.2003, another order was passed and report as well as Field Book were produced before the revenue Court and objections were also invited from the opposite parties. The said objections were decided on 28.02.2006, but again orders were passed for fixation of stone and matter was again referred to the Tehsil Authorities to submit 2 WRIB No. 854 of 2025 report on 06.06.2013. It is recorded that several objections were filed by the opposite parties and the authority proceeded to conclude the proceedings in the light of report submitted on 08.06.2013.

4. It is noticed that neither the merits of the case has been touched nor the objections were discussed or considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and accordingly private respondents preferred an appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back for decision afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties by order dated 20.11.2024.

5. While remanding the said matter the Additional Commissioner had noticed that the trial Court did not consider any of the objections raised by the private respondents and had decided the case only on the basis of reports placed before him by the revenue authorities. He was of the considered view that the trial Court would have duly considered and decided the objections raised by the opposite parties before proceeding to pass orders, relying upon the reports submitted by the revenue authorities.

6. Against the appellate order dated 20.11.2024, the petitioner had filed revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, after considering the entire facts, rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner by order dated 30.06.2025, holding that there was no infirmity in the orders passed by the appellate authority in remanding the matter for decision afresh by the trial Court.

7. Accordingly, in the present writ petition order dated 30.06.2025 as well as 20.11.2024 have been assailed. The petitioners have submitted that the dispute is pending since 1991 and till date the matter has not attained finality. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the proceedings were initiated in 1991 when only provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act were operational and U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had not been enacted. Subsequently, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 also came into force. The private respondents proceeded under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is erroneous, as they should have proceeded on the basis of pre-existing law rather than proceeding under the U.P. Revenue 3 WRIB No. 854 of 2025 Code, 2006.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the matter up to some length contends that there is no difference in the procedure described under the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 and U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the impugned orders and have stated that the matter has been remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh. The appellate authority has discussed and stated that the trial Court did not consider any of the objections or grounds raised by the opposite parties and has allowed the application of the petitioners.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the appellate Court as well as revisional Court remanding the matter back to the trial Court for consideration afresh.

11. From the perusal of order of Sub Divisional Magistrate it is evident that is a non speaking order where he merely noted the list of dates on which the reports were called for from the revenue authorities. This Court also finds that objections filed by the opposite parties have not been considered.

12. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made above, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned orders. The writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

13. However, it is noticed that in the remand proceedings, the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall proceed to consider and pass orders only after hearing rival contentions, considering the fact that numerous reports are available on record with regard to the disput in question.

14. Both the parties before this Court have consented to cooperate in the proceedings and no fresh material or report is further required for adjudication on the application which shall be decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

15. In the light of the above, Sub Divisional Magistrate shall proceed to 4 WRIB No. 854 of 2025 consider and decide the application of the petitioner under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, expeditiously, say within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

16. The parties before this Court undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

17. Subject to the aforesaid directions, present writ petition stands disposed of. September 10, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench