AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
On 19.12.2007 the following order was passed
"The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue allowed the revision by order dated 2nd July, 2007 without issuing any notice and without hearing the petitioners. Subsequently the recall application filed by the petitioners has also been rejected without assigning any reasons by order dated 7th November, 2007. Normally this Court would not interfere in summary proceedings arising out of Land Revenue Act but only on the ground of denial of opportunity this petition is being entertained.
Learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may file counter affidavit within one month.
Issue notice to respondent No. 3.
Steps may be taken on or before 7th January, 2008. List this petition on the date mentioned in '' the notice. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 2.7.2007 and 7.11.2007 passed by Board of Revenue shall remain stayed."
Parties have exchanged their affidavits. From a perusal of the counter affidavit and the impugned order dated 2.7.2007 it is clearly established that the Board of Revenue without issuing notices and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who was opposite party in the revision, allowed the revision and remitted the matter. The order of the Board of Revenue thus, suffers from lack of opportunity and therefore, cannot be sustained.
It is accordingly quashed.
The matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue for deciding the revision afresh on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties strictly in accordance with law.
Petition is accordingly allowed.