Mohammad Islam vs Board of Revenue and Others

Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and Sri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is being disposed of.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.2.2002 Annexure11 to the writ petition by which the learned Member of the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad passed an order for directing the revision petition filed by the petitioner to be placed before the Chairman, Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow for suitable orders.

Facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition briefly noted are;

Agricultural land belonging to the respondent No.7 was put to auction in the recovery proceedings for arrears of land revenue. The auction took place on 5.11.2001 in which the petitioner was highest bidder. Petitioner deposited 25% of the amount on 5.11.2001 and rest 75% amount was deposited by the petitioner on 20.11.2001. Respondent No.7 filed an application under Section 2851 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act praying for setting aside the auction. On the said application the Commissioner passed an order on 3.1.2002 setting aside the auction conditionally on the condition of the application depositing the entire sale amount within 15 days. The counsel for the respondents stated that he has deposited the entire amount in compliance of the said order. Against the said order dated 3.1.2002 petitioner claimed to have filed a revision before the Board of Revenue at Allahabad which was not entertained. He then filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1387 of 2002 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court''s judgment dated 10.1.2002 holding that against the order of the Commissioner the petitioner has remedy to file a revision under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. This Court observed in the said order that the revision is maintainable before the Board of Revenue. After the order dated 10.1.2002 the petitioner filed revision before the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad which was registered as Revision No.4 of 20012002. The revision was taken up by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue on 4.2.2002 and the learned Member on the basis of the report submitted by the Joint Registrar, Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad ordered that the revision be heard by the Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow and directed the revision to be placed before the Chairman, Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow for suitable orders. This order has been challenged in this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the said order contended that the revision filed by the petitioner is maintained at Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad as the revision was filed under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. His contention is that the revisions filed under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act are maintainable at Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and the revisions filed under the U.P. Land Revenue Act are maintainable at Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the proceeding relating to distribution of work between the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and Lucknow. Learned standing counsel filed counter affidavit bringing the proceeding dated 9.10.1990 of Board of Revenue on record. Learned standing counsel with regard to distribution of work has referred to clause (3) which is extracted below:

The question which is to be considered in the case is, as to whether the present revision filed by the petitioner is to be entertained at Allahabad or at Lucknow. From clause (3) of the distribution of work as extracted above, it is clear that the cases regarding recovery of arrears of land revenue both under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and the U.P. Land Revenue Act are to be entertained, heard and decided at Lucknow. From the said clause it is clear that the revisions filed for recovery of any amount as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot be entertained at Allahabad. The order of learned Member of Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad was perfectly justified and no interference is required in the said order. The counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that his revision is not being heard for the last two years due to which he is suffering loss.

In view of above it is observed that the Chairman Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow will assign the revision to any learned Member of the Board of Revenue to decide the same within a period of three months from the date on which the parties appear before the Chairman. Both the parties undertakes to appear before the Chairman, Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow on 23rd February, 2004.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

(Ordered accordingly)