Allahabad High Court
Ram Kailash Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 4 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)AWC1017, 2002 ALL. L. J. 665, 2002 A I H C 1880, 2002 ALL CJ 1 539, (2002) REVDEC 236, (2002) 2 ALL WC 1017
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings of Revision No, 41 of 1992, Ramshiromani v. Raj Murat, under Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. The counsel for the petitioner has alternatively submitted that a direction be issued to the revisional court to decide the revision expeditiously. A revision has been filed by Ram Shiromani, i.e., respondent No. 5 before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Machhli Shahr, in case No. 16 under Sections 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act.The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid revision was filed under Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. He has submitted that Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act has been deleted by U. P. Act No. XX of 1997, hence there is no provision of Section 218 in the statute Book. The Commissioner has no jurisdiction to proceed with the aforesaid revision. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the above, the proceedings of the revision be quashed.
3. I have considered the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. The provisions of Sections 218 and 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, as existed prior to amendment by U. P. Act No. XX of 1997, were as follows :
"218. Reference to the Board.--The Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner, the Collector, the Record Officer or the Settlement Officer may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings, and, tf he is of opinion that the proceeding taken or order passed by such subordinate officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board and the Board shall thereupon pass such orders as it thinks fit.
219. Revision before the Board.--The Board may call for the record of any case decided by any subordinate court, and if the subordinate court appears :
(a) to have exercised a Jurisdiction not vested in it in law : or
(b) to have failed to exercise a Jurisdiction so vested ; or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material Irregularity.
the Board may pass such order as it thinks fit."
4. By U. P. Act No. XX of 1997, provision of Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act was deleted and provision of Section 219 was substituted. Section 219 of the said Act as amended by U. P. Act No. XX of 1997 is quoted below :
"219. Revision.--(1) The Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, may call for the record of any case decided or proceeding held by any revenue court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding held and if such subordinate revenue court appears to have-
(a) exercised a Jurisdiction not vested in it by law. or
(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) acted in the exercise of Jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the Board or the Commissfoner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Officer, or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, pass such order in the case as he thinks fit.
(2) If an application under this Section has been moved by any person either to the Board, or to the Commissioner, or to the Additional Commissioner, or the Collector or to the Record Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them."
5. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that earlier no power of revision was exercised by the Board of Revenue under Section 219 and under Section 218 of the Additional Commissioner, Collector, the Record Officer or the Settlement Officer has jurisdiction to call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings, and, if it were of opinion that the proceeding taken or order passed by such subordinate officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed, the reference was required to be made to the Board of Revenue. By deletion of provision of reference by the U. P. Act No. XX of 1997, now Section 219 has been substituted which gives power of revision both to Board of Revenue and the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner or Collector or Record Officer or Settlement Officer. The earlier power of reference has also been deleted and the revisional power has been given. Now the Additional Commissioner, if he is satisfied that any order passed by subordinate authority is required to be reversed it can exercise the revisional power and there is no need for reference to the Board of Revenue. At the time when the revision was filed in the year 1992, the said revision was under Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act claiming exercise of power of reference. Section 10 of the U. P. Act No. XX of 1997 has only saved the reference which were already referred to the Board of Revenue on 18.8.1997. Thus, even if the reference was filed under Section 218 prior to 18.8.1997 in which no reference was made to the Board of Revenue, the same could not have been continued as the reference under Section 218. Now the Commissioner himself has been vested with the power of revisional jurisdiction under Section 219. In Revision No. 41 of 1992 which is pending before the Commissioner, there is no lack of Jurisdiction in the Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdiction. The exercise of jurisdiction now has to be made under Section 219 instead of Section 218. Merely because in the memo of revision Section 218 was mentioned earlier, it will not Inhibit the Commissioner in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act.
6. In view of the above, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the revision cannot be proceeded with under Section 218 cannot be accepted. The revision is to proceed under Section 219 and can be decided according to law.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the revision is pending since 1992 and has not yet been decided. As stated above, the Additional Commissioner has to exercise his revisional power under Section 219 and the said Revision No. 41 of 1992 is required to be decided by the Commissioner. The revision is pending for the last more than eight years. It is appropriate that the respondent No. 2 may consider and dispose of the aforesaid revision expeditionsly. In view of the above fact since only direction in the writ petition is being issued to respondent No. 2 to decide the revision expedltiously, no notice is issued to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the writ petition.
8. The writ petition is being disposed of with the direction to the respondent No. 2 to expeditiously decide the Revision No. 41 of 1992 in accordance with law.