Jagneshwar and others vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others

Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri L.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, Sri Anuj Kumar, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 3 and Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have been granted Asami lease for a period of five years vide order dated 25.4,2004, annexure1 to die writ petition. One Vikram Singh moved an application for the cancellation of the lease. The said application was dismissed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 27.1.2006. Feeling aggrieved, Vikram Singh filed revision before Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur, which was allowed and the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate has been set aside and the lease in favour of the petitioners have been cancelled. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision before Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed.

3 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate revision lies before the Collector and not before Additional Commissioner. He further submitted that without any material, Additional Commissioner has recorded the finding which has been confirmed by the Member, Board of Revenue that the land in dispute which was allotted on lease to the petitioners is river belt land of public utility without giving any detail of such entry in the revenue record. He further submitted that Member, Board of Revenue has also not considered the submission that the revision lies before the Collector and not before Additional Commissioner.

Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 supported the order of Member, Board of Revenue.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of Board of Revenue and also the order passed by the Additional Commissioner.

With the consent of both the parties, both the writ petitions are being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

Neither in the order of Board of Revenue nor in the order of Additional Commissioner any detail of entry in the revenue record is referred, in which the land is shown as river belt land of public utility. The Member Board of Revenue has also not addressed the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the revision lies before the Collector and not before the Additional Commissioner.

In this view of the matter, order of Board of Revenue is vitiated and is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Member, Board of Revenue to decide the matter afresh. While deciding the revisions, Member, Board of Revenue may also consider the argument of the petitioner that the revision lies before the Collector and not before the Additional Commissioner and he may further give the details of the entry in the records relating to the disputed land, whether it is river belt land of public utility or agricultural land and decide the revision afresh.

In the result both the revisions are allowed. Order dated 5.8.2008 passed by Board of Revenue is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue to decide the Revision Nos. 10 and 11 of 200607 afresh in the light of the observations made above in accordance to the law,, expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.

Revisions Allowed,