Radhe Shyam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And

1. Heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Pankaj Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the proceedings of partition instituted at the behest of the petitioner U/S 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Assistant Collector / Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had sought partition of Gata No. 1288M area 0.670 hectare situated at Village Puriyawan, Pargana Manikpur, Tehsil - Kunda, district Pratapgarh which is in joint possession of the petitioner and the private respondents. According to the plaint submitted by the petitioner, he has claimed 1/6th portion of the land for himself and the other 1/6th portion of Brindavan. While private respondents according to the petitioner were entitled to 2/3rd share of the said property.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that 1/6th share of the disputed property was purchased by the petitioner by means of a registered sale deed from the said Brindavan. The trial court had issued notices to the respondents in the said case and no appearance having been put on behalf of respondents. The preliminary decree was passed on 2 WRIB No. 1024 of 2025

16.08.2018 holding that plaintiffs were entitled to 1/3rd share while the defendants were entitled to 2/3rd share and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the property and prepare Kurra report.

5. The report was submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and reliying upon the said report a final decree was drawn / and order passed on

29.08.2018. The private respondents thereafter on coming to know about the said proceedings had moved an application for recall stating that the proceedings were ex-parte without associating the respondents and no notices were served upon them and alleged that even the kurra report had serious infirmities. The application for recall was rejected by the SDM, Kunda, Pratapgarh after recording the fact that according to the petitioner the respondents were aware of the proceedings since the very initiation and therefore there were no infirmity in the same.

6. On rejection of the application of recall on 28.06.2019, a revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue while deciding the revision noticed the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing but after recording the fact that no prejudiced has been caused to the private respondents and even otherwise the Board of Revenue was of the view that they were entitled only to 2/3rd of the share of the disputed property, rejected the revision by means of order dated 02.06.2022.

7. The private respondents thereafter had filed a review of the order dated

02.06.2022 which has been allowed by means of order dated 28.08.2025. While allowing the review, the Board of Revenue has given a categorical finding that the private respondents were never served during trial proceedings of partition and even the kurra report has been prepared in gross violation of Rule 109 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Rules, 2016 inasmuch as there is no provision of preparation of a kurra report by Advocate Commissioner and as per the prescription in the said rules provided only for preparation of Kurra report by the area Lekhpal and accordingly there were serious infirmities with regard to the procedure and with regard to the substantial provisions and accordingly found there were error apparent on the face of the record while passing the revisional order dated 02.06.2022 and consequently allowed the review and has 3 WRIB No. 1024 of 2025 fixed the date of hearing on 14.10.2025.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid facts but submits that the said review is illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction inasmuch as once the Board of Revenue had itself rejected the revision of the petitioner by means of order dated 02.06.2022 it could not exercise its power of review on the same facts and allowed the application at the behest of the respondents. He submits that there were no error apparent on the face of the record necessitating review and therefore prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the order dated

02.06.2022 may be restored.

9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that as per Section 211 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, specific power of review has been conferred on the Board of Revenue where it is provided that "the Board may, of its own motion or on the application of any party interested, review any order passed by itself and pass such orders in reference thereto as it thinks fit."

10. It has further been submitted that the power of review has been confined as per Sub-Clause 2 of Section 211 in matters where there is only discovery of any new important matter or evidence or some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason.

11. He has further submitted that the review provided for U/S 211 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is far wider than the power of review given U/S 114 of CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. It has been submitted that though under Sub-Clause (b) of Section 211 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it has been stated that the review can be made only when there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record but the State legislature was conscious of the fact that a wider extent is required and accordingly in clause (c), it has been stated that order can be reviewed even if there are sufficient reasons for doing so. In this regard he has submitted that the impugned order passed by Board of Revenue dated 28.08.2025 would indicate firstly that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner inasmuch as even the notices were not served upon him due to which he would not participate in the trial proceedings. Secondly, it has found 4 WRIB No. 1024 of 2025 serious infirmity with regard to violation of statutory rules provided for under Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Court Rules, 2016 where the Kurra report has been prepared by Advocate Commissioner and as per Rule 109 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Rules, 2016, a Kurra report can be prepared only by the area Lekhpal and therefore the kurra report itself is without jurisdiction, apart from this even after preparing the kurra report no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.

12. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the report.

13. Considering the argument of the petitioner with regard to aspect of jurisdiction of review which has been exercised by the Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order dated 28.08.25025, this Court finds that the exercise has been done only in consonance with provisions of Section 211 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. When it was pointed out by private respondent who were the review applicants in the trial court, they were never heard and the notices were not even served, the Board of Revenue looked into this aspect and returned a finding that in fact notices were not served and were returned back unserved. It is on this account, they have categorically returned a finding that the proceedings before the trial court were ex-parte and private respondent was not afforded opportunity of hearing. Secondly, on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the Board of Revenue has noticed that proceedings of preparation of Kurra pursuant to the preparation of the preliminary decree were in gross violation of Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Court Rules, 2016 and therefore these were grounds sufficient to exercise the power of review and its constitute sufficient reasons as provided for in Section 211 (c) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

14. Learned counsel for petitioner has not disputed the factual aspect of the matter and has confines his arguments only on the question of jurisdiction.

15. Accordingly, as discussed above, this Court finds that the power exercised by Board of Revenue were in consonance with Section 211 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and sufficient reasons were given by them for exercise of power of review. Apart from above, this Court would not deal 5 WRIB No. 1024 of 2025 on the merit of the controversy, inasmuch as the application of review has been allowed by the Board of Revenue by means of order dated

28.08.2025 and the revision preferred by the respondents has yet to be decided on merits. Accordingly, it is for the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned order and no interference is required leaving to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision in accordance with law.

16. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is dismissed. It is expected that they shall conclude the proceedings expeditiously, say, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.

17. Parties before this Court have undertaken to cooperate in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue. November 12, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Pankaj Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the proceedings of partition instituted at the behest of the petitioner U/S 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Assistant Collector / Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had sought partition of Gata No. 1288M area 0.670 hectare situated at Village Puriyawan, Pargana Manikpur, Tehsil - Kunda, district Pratapgarh which is in joint possession of the petitioner and the private respondents. According to the plaint submitted by the petitioner, he has claimed 1/6th portion of the land for himself and the other 1/6th portion of Brindavan. While private respondents according to the petitioner were entitled to 2/3rd share of the said property.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that 1/6th share of the disputed property was purchased by the petitioner by means of a registered sale deed from the said Brindavan. The trial court had issued notices to the respondents in the said case and no appearance having been put on behalf of respondents. The preliminary decree was passed on 2 WRIB No. 1024 of 2025

16.08.2018 holding that plaintiffs were entitled to 1/3rd share while the defendants were entitled to 2/3rd share and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the property and prepare Kurra report.

5. The report was submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and reliying upon the said report a final decree was drawn / and order passed on

29.08.2018. The private respondents thereafter on coming to know about the said proceedings had moved an application for recall stating that the proceedings were ex-parte without associating the respondents and no notices were served upon them and alleged that even the kurra report had serious infirmities. The application for recall was rejected by the SDM, Kunda, Pratapgarh after recording the fact that according to the petitioner the respondents were aware of the proceedings since the very initiation and therefore there were no infirmity in the same.

6. On rejection of the application of recall on 28.06.2019, a revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue while deciding the revision noticed the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing but after recording the fact that no prejudiced has been caused to the private respondents and even otherwise the Board of Revenue was of the view that they were entitled only to 2/3rd of the share of the disputed property, rejected the revision by means of order dated 02.06.2022.

7. The private respondents thereafter had filed a review of the order dated

02.06.2022 which has been allowed by means of order dated 28.08.2025. While allowing the review, the Board of Revenue has given a categorical finding that the private respondents were never served during trial proceedings of partition and even the kurra report has been prepared in gross violation of Rule 109 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Rules, 2016 inasmuch as there is no provision of preparation of a kurra report by Advocate Commissioner and as per the prescription in the said rules provided only for preparation of Kurra report by the area Lekhpal and accordingly there were serious infirmities with regard to the procedure and with regard to the substantial provisions and accordingly found there were error apparent on the face of the record while passing the revisional order dated 02.06.2022 and consequently allowed the review and has 3 WRIB No. 1024 of 2025 fixed the date of hearing on 14.10.2025.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid facts but submits that the said review is illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction inasmuch as once the Board of Revenue had itself rejected the revision of the petitioner by means of order dated 02.06.2022 it could not exercise its power of review on the same facts and allowed the application at the behest of the respondents. He submits that there were no error apparent on the face of the record necessitating review and therefore prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the order dated

02.06.2022 may be restored.

9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that as per Section 211 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, specific power of review has been conferred on the Board of Revenue where it is provided that "the Board may, of its own motion or on the application of any party interested, review any order passed by itself and pass such orders in reference thereto as it thinks fit."

10. It has further been submitted that the power of review has been confined as per Sub-Clause 2 of Section 211 in matters where there is only discovery of any new important matter or evidence or some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason.

11. He has further submitted that the review provided for U/S 211 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is far wider than the power of review given U/S 114 of CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. It has been submitted that though under Sub-Clause (b) of Section 211 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it has been stated that the review can be made only when there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record but the State legislature was conscious of the fact that a wider extent is required and accordingly in clause (c), it has been stated that order can be reviewed even if there are sufficient reasons for doing so. In this regard he has submitted that the impugned order passed by Board of Revenue dated 28.08.2025 would indicate firstly that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner inasmuch as even the notices were not served upon him due to which he would not participate in the trial proceedings. Secondly, it has found 4 WRIB No. 1024 of 2025 serious infirmity with regard to violation of statutory rules provided for under Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Court Rules, 2016 where the Kurra report has been prepared by Advocate Commissioner and as per Rule 109 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Rules, 2016, a Kurra report can be prepared only by the area Lekhpal and therefore the kurra report itself is without jurisdiction, apart from this even after preparing the kurra report no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.

12. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the report.

13. Considering the argument of the petitioner with regard to aspect of jurisdiction of review which has been exercised by the Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order dated 28.08.25025, this Court finds that the exercise has been done only in consonance with provisions of Section 211 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. When it was pointed out by private respondent who were the review applicants in the trial court, they were never heard and the notices were not even served, the Board of Revenue looked into this aspect and returned a finding that in fact notices were not served and were returned back unserved. It is on this account, they have categorically returned a finding that the proceedings before the trial court were ex-parte and private respondent was not afforded opportunity of hearing. Secondly, on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the Board of Revenue has noticed that proceedings of preparation of Kurra pursuant to the preparation of the preliminary decree were in gross violation of Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Court Rules, 2016 and therefore these were grounds sufficient to exercise the power of review and its constitute sufficient reasons as provided for in Section 211 (c) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

14. Learned counsel for petitioner has not disputed the factual aspect of the matter and has confines his arguments only on the question of jurisdiction.

15. Accordingly, as discussed above, this Court finds that the power exercised by Board of Revenue were in consonance with Section 211 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and sufficient reasons were given by them for exercise of power of review. Apart from above, this Court would not deal 5 WRIB No. 1024 of 2025 on the merit of the controversy, inasmuch as the application of review has been allowed by the Board of Revenue by means of order dated

28.08.2025 and the revision preferred by the respondents has yet to be decided on merits. Accordingly, it is for the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned order and no interference is required leaving to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision in accordance with law.

16. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is dismissed. It is expected that they shall conclude the proceedings expeditiously, say, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.

17. Parties before this Court have undertaken to cooperate in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue. November 12, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench