Allahabad High Court
Amit Gujrati And 2 Others vs The Board Of Revenue And 6 Others on 17 December, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:197915 Court No. - 69 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3250 of 2024 Petitioner :- Amit Gujrati And 2 Others Respondent :- The Board Of Revenue And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Niraj Tiwari,Jitendra Shankar Pandey,Rohit Tiwari,Vishwa Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Tarun Agrawal, Yash Padia,Anil Kumar Mehrotra,C.S.C.,Niraj Tiwari,Prashant Sharma,Satish Chandra Singh Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Vishwa Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Tarun Agarwal along with Shri Yash Padia, learned counsels, who have put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 5, in opposition to the writ petition.
The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Board of Revenue dated 10.6.2024 passed in Revision registered as REV-2264/2024-Chandauli, computerized Case No. AL20241418002264 (Vidhya Devi versus Mohan Lal and others) under Sections 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby the revision has been allowed and the order dated 23.9.2023 passed on the recall application of the petitioners seeking recall of the exparte order dated 21.9.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in proceedings under Section 38 has been set aside and the petitioners have been relegated to file appeal under Section 38 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is patently erroneous inasmuch as, the petitioners could not have been relegated to filing an appeal against the order dated 21.9.2023. He submits that the said order was exparte order as the petitioners admittedly had not been heard by the Sub Divisional Magistrate while passing the order dated 21.9.2023 and in such view of the matter, considering the express bar contained in Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, no appeal could have been filed. He further submits that the revision itself under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code was not maintainable as the same was directed against an interlocutory order as the Sub Divisional Magistrate had entertained the recall application and only stayed the operation of the order dated 21.9.2023.
This Court vide order dated 30.8.2024 while recording the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners had issued notices to the private respondent Nos. 5 to 7 requiring the private respondents to file counter affidavit within six weeks and two weeks' thereafter was granted to learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit. At the same time, it was directed that the effect and operations of the order dated 10.6.2024 passed in the above mentioned revision, Vidhya Devi versus Mohan Lal and others was directed to remain in abeyance and status quo as regards nature and possession over the land in dispute was directed to be maintained.
Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondent No. 5 as also the respondent No. 6 put in their appearances.
A recall application dated 6.9.2024 was filed on behalf of respondent No. 5-Vidhya Devi wife of late Pran Nath Melhotra seeking recall of the exparte order dated 30.8.2024 passed by the this Hon'ble Court on the ground that she had filed a caveat, which was reported on 2.7.2024 in the Registry of this Court. However, the names of the counsels representing the caveator-respondent was not mentioned in the cause list, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 30.8.2024. The recall of the order dated 30.8.2024 passed by this Court has also been sought on the ground that the petitioners had filed a recall application seeking recall of the order dated 10.6.2024 before the Board of Revenue, which was pending at the time of consideration of the writ petition.
The recall application has been fixed for consideration before this Court today.
Shri Vishwa Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Shri Yash Padia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 fairly submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition stand already decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-B No. 4709 of 2024 and in stead of considering the recall application, the writ petition itself be decided in terms of the decision dated 11.12.2024 passed in Writ-B No. 4709 of 2024.
In the above backdrop, the Court proceeds to decide the writ petition, on merits.
This Court has already observed in the preceding paragraphs of this order that the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 10.6.2024 is patently erroneous as no direction for filing the appeal against the order dated 21.9.2023 would be maintainable in view of the express bar contained in Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Learned counsel for the parties fairly concede that the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 10.6.2024 be set aside and directions be issued for deciding the recall application pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned on merits, expeditiously.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having perused the recall application, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with the direction that the recall application pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned seeking recall of the order dated 21.9.2023 be decided expeditiously.
Accordingly, it is directed that the order dated 10.6.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision registered as REV-2264/2024-Chandauli, computerized Case No. AL20241418002264 (Vidhya Devi versus Mohan Lal and others) under Sections 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 23.9.2023 passed on the recall application of the petitioners and relegating them to file an appeal under Section 38 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is set aside and directions are issued to the Sub Divisional Magistrate,Chandauli seized with the recall application seeking recall of the order dated 21.9.2023 to decide the recall application, on merits, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of service of certified copy of the order of this Court. Pending application before this Court stand disposed of.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.12.2024 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)