Allahabad High Court
Hukmi vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 1 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 565 of 2022 Petitioner :- Hukmi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Tripathi,Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava and Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5.
With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage.
The instant petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 18.1.2022 passed by respondent no.6 i.e. Chairman Board of Revenue, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in Case No.RES/1811/2021/Gautam Buddha Nagar (Computerized Case No.R20211127001811) (Hukmi Vs. Smt. Bhavana Srivastava Member Board of Revenue Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj), and the order dated 18.02.2021 passed by Chairman Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh in Case No. T.A./282/2021/Gautam Buddh Nagar (Computerized Case No. R2021112700282) under Sections 24-A and 151 of C.P.C. in Revision No.20/2010-11 as well as for mandamus directing respondent no.6 to send the original record of the revision to the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Prayagraj for its proper hearing.
Brief facts of the case are that Revision No.20/2010-11 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 122B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj. A Transfer Application No.282 of 2021 alleged to be filed at the instance of the petitioner for transferring his Revision No.20 of 2010-11 from Prayagraj to Lucknow has been allowed vide order dated 18.2.2021 passed by respondent no.6, hence this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has not filed any transfer application to transfer his case. He further submitted that forgery has been committed and the transfer application has been filed by somebody else as petitioner has not engaged any counsel for filing transfer application for transferring his case from Prayagraj to Lucknow. He further submitted that the false allegation has been made in the transfer application and the matter has been illegally transferred from Prayagraj to Lucknow. He further submitted that review application filed by petitioner against the order dated 18.02.2021 was arbitrarily rejected. He next submitted that Board of Revenue has no power to transfer any case which is pending before the equivalent Court, namely, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj as provided under Section 212 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Section 212 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is as follows:
212. Power to transfer cases:
(1) Where it appears to the Board that it will be expedient for the ends of justice to do so, it may direct that any case be transferred from one revenue officer to another revenue officer of an equal or superior rank in same district or any other district.
(2) The Commissioner, the Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer may make over any case or class of cases arising under the provisions of this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force, for decision from his own file to any revenue officer subordinate to him and competent to decide such case or class of cases, or may withdraw any case or class of cases from any such revenue officer and may deal with such case or class of cases himself or refer the same for disposal to any other revenue officer competent to decide such case or class of cases."
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that similar controversy has been adjudicated by this Court in Writ B No.2063 of 2022 (Mahesh Vs.State of U.P. and others) vide order dated 20.09.2022 in which order passed on transfer application has been set aside by this Court.
Counsel for the petitioner finally submitted that impugned order be set aside and his revision be heard and disposed of by Board of Revenue, U.P. Prayagraj where the revision was filed.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents have no objection if the impugned order is set aside as the revision is to be decided finally either before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj or before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner has filed Revision No.20 of 2010-11 arising out of proceeding under Section 122B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Prayagraj, who has jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute in respect to disputed plot.
Since petitioner himself is saying that he has not filed any transfer application for transferring his case from Prayagraj to Lucknow and serious allegation has been made in the writ petition that he never engaged any counsel nor executed any Vakalatnama in favour of anybody in the transfer application, as such, the interest of justice will be served by setting aside the impugned order dated 18.2.2021 by which the petitioner's revision has been transferred from Prayagraj to Lucknow as well as order dated 18.01.2022 by which review application has been dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.2.2021 & 18.01.2022 passed by respondent no.6 i.e. Chairman Board of Revenue, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh are hereby set aside and Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj is directed to decide the pending Revision No.20 of 2010-11 arising out of proceeding under Section 122B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously.
Needless to say that if the record of the revision has been sent before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow, the same shall be remitted back before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj.
Writ petition is allowed.
No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 1.11.2022 Sanjeet