AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Sri Gyanendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate appears for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 by filing his vakalatnama which is taken on record.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.6 is taken on record.
On 6.2.2017 this court had passed the following order: "Heard learned counsel for the parties.
List/ put up on Thursday i.e 09.02.2017 as fresh.
Let the original records of Revision No. REV/2546/2016/Mahrajganj be summoned by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel from the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, as, the allegation is that the matter was disposed of at the admission stage itself without summoning the lower Court records and looking into it, whereas, order final disposing of the revision states that the lower Court records be returned to the Subordinate Court and also that the order has been passed on Sunday i.e. 15.01.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to the document annexed as Annexure No. 11 which is an office report indicating that the lower Court record was never summoned nor was it received.
Till the next date of listing status quo as existing today shall be maintained by the parties in respect of the plats in question."
On 9.2.2017 the records were not produced, therefore, case was fixed for 10.2.2017 for production of records, as ordered earlier. On 10.2.2017 the following order was passed:
"Heard.
Perused the original record. It shows that lower court record was never summoned. In this regard the counsel for State Says that it is not necessary to summon the record but certainly a recital in the judgment that lower court record be returned is without any basis. The matter was lastly ordered to be listed on 09.01.2017. The order sheet dated 09.01.2017 does not say that the matter was heard and judgment was reserved yet the judgment has been pronounced on 15.01.2017. The original judgment has been pronounced on 15.01.2017. The original copy of the judgment is on record bearing signatures of Sri P.V. Jagmohan IAS Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue appending the date 15.01.2017. It is inexplicable as to how the said judgment could have been pronounced on the said date which was a Sunday.
The Board of revenue has set aside the order of the appellate court which was one of remand to the sub Divisional Magistrate for proceeding under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, which is normally not interfered.
Issue notice to opposite party nos. 3 to 6 returnable at an early date.
The opposite party no.6 shall file his own affidavit in this regard positively before the next date of listing.
The operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed until further orders of this Court.
List on 20.03.2017 as fresh.
The original record which has been produced today before the court is returned to the Chairman Board of Revenue with a direction to keep it in sealed cover with him for being produced before the Court as and when the same is required. However, if the opposite party no.6 wishes to see the record for filing his own affidavit the Chairman, shall allow him to see the record in his presence and not otherwise.
Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the parties counsel on payment of usual charges within a period of 24 hours."
The short point to be considered herein is was as to the validity of the judgment impugned which is dated 15.1.217 on the ground that the case was fixed before the Board of Revenue firstly on 5.1.2017 when no hearing took place, thereafter it was listed on 9.1.2017 when the matter was allegedly heard on admission, but surprisingly, as per the petitioner, a final judgment was signed and passed on 15.1.2017 and sent to the office.
On 10.2.2017 this court had perused the original records wherein it noticed that the lower court records had never been summoned by the Judicial Member of the Board of Revenue, yet the final order passed by him on 15.1.2017 contained a recital for returning the lower court''s records and the same was found to be without any basis. This court noticed that the ordersheet dated 9.1.2017 did not say that the matter was heard and the judgment was reserved, yet it was signed on 15.1.2017, which was a Sunday.
A copy of the ordersheet dated 9.1.2017 has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the Judicial Member of the Board of Revenue, Dr. P.V. Jaganmohan, who has passed the impugned order. Based thereon it has been submitted by Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on his behalf that on the left-hand column of the ordersheet counsel for both the parties had made their signatures and the alphabets ''JR'' are also mentioned allegedly by the ''Peshkar'' which stands for ''Judgment Reserved'', although he admits to the fact that the Presiding Officer did not mention any such fact about the matter being heard and the judgment being reserved in the ordersheet under his own signatures, however, he submits that this is the normal practice in the Board of Revenue and even after reserving the judgment the same is never pronounced in open court.
As regards the judgment being signed on 15.1.2017, Sri Singh submitted that this was a bona fide error, when the file was put up before the Judicial Member by the Peshkar on the said date.
On the other hand, Sri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner alleges manipulation of records.
As far as copy of the cause-list filed by the opposite party no.6 alongwith his affidavit is concerned, same is not part of the court proceedings and cannot be taken into consideration.
The fact of the matter is that the case was listed before the opposite party no.6 on 9.1.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits to the fact that hearing did take place on the said date, but on admission only and it was not final hearing. Even assuming for a moment that the judgment was reserved by the opposite party no.6 on 9.1.2017, the appropriate course for him was to pronounce it in open court rather than simply signing such judgment and sending it to office, that too on a Sunday. Furthermore, there can be no justification, whatsoever, nor the one submitted in his supplementary affidavit can be accepted in this regard, for signing the judgment on 15.1.2017 and sending it to office, as, it was a Sunday. The date of judgment in this case cannot be treated as 15.1.2017 which was a holiday.
If the Board of Revenue reserves a judgment after hearing a case, it is required to pass a specific order on the ordersheet to the effect that the matter had been heard and judgment was being reserved, which should bear the signature of the Member(s) of the Board of Revenue. An endorsement on the column by the Peshkar in this regard is not acceptable. Thereafter, the Board after preparing the reserved judgment should fix a date for its pronouncement in open Court. None of this was done in the instant case. Moreover, as stated above, the judgment was signed and passed on a Sunday and the file was sent to the office. Such a practice is not acceptable. Discharge of judicial/quasi-judicial functions require adherence to principles of fairness and transparency.
The Chairman of the Board of Revenue shall apprise all the Members of the Board accordingly and shall ensure compliance as aforesaid.
In view of the above, considering the well settled principle of law that ''justice should not only be done, but should also appear to have been done'' the order impugned is quashed. The revisions shall now be heard by the Board of Revenue afresh. For this purpose the Chairman may either himself hear the revisions or nominate some other Member of the Board, other than opposite party no.6.
The opposite party no.6 should be cautious in future so that such a situation, as has arisen in this case, does not arise again.
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the revisions to be decided afresh.