Seva Lal v. Sri Kant & Ors.
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. On May 4, 1992 Naib Tehsildar, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar,
allowed the application for mutation made by the appellant.
Aggrieved by the order of the Naib Tehsildar, the present
respondents preferred appeal under Section 210 of Uttar
Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (for short, 'Act') before the c
Sub Divisional Officer, Kanpur. The Sub Divisional Officer by
his order dated May 4, 1993 remanded the matter to the Naib
Tehsildar for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to the
parties. The appellant felt aggrieved by the order dated May 4,
1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kanpur and D
preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur
Division, underSection 218 of the Act. The Additional
Commissioner dismissed the appellant's revision.
3. Not satisfied with the order of the Additional
Commissioner, Kanpur Division, the appellant preferred further E
revision under Section 219 of the Act before the Board of
Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 24.8.2009/
1.9.2009 allowed ttie revision filed by the appellant, set aside
the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Sub
Divisional Officer and restored the order of the Naib Tehsildar F
passed on May 4, 1992.
4. The present respondents challenged the order of the
Board of Revenue in a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High
Court. The Single Judge of the High Court has held that second G
revision preferred by the appellant under Section 219 of the Act
was not maintainable and, accordingly, set aside the order of
the Board of Revenue and directed the parties to appear before
the Naib Tehsildar.
5. The appellant preferred the first revision before the H
A Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, against the order
dated May 4, 1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Kanpur under Section 218 of the Act. Section 218 read as
under:-
"Section 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, if 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."
6. As noted above, the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur
Division, dismissed the appellant revision preferred under
Section 218 of the Act. What Section 218 provides is that the
E revisional authority mentioned therein if forms an opinion that
the order passed by the subordinate officer needs to be varied,
cancelled or reversed then it has to refer the case with its
opinion to the Board of Revenue. There was no occasion for
the Additional Commissioner to refer the matter to the Board
F of Revenue as the appellant's revision was dismissed by him.
On dismissal of first revision by the Additional Commissioner,
the appellant invoked the power of revision of the Board under
Section 219 of the Act which in 1994 read as under:-
"Section 219. Revision before the Board.- The Board may
call for tne 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
SEVA LAL v. SRI KANT & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.] 5
(b.) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or A
(c) to have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or
with material irregularity, the Board may pass such order
as it thinks fit."
7. There was no provision in Section 219 that was existing B
prior t9 the amendment in 1997 that if an application has been
moved by any person either to the Board or Commissioner or
Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer
or the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same
person shall be entertained by any of them. Sub-section (2) of C
Section 219 to the above effect came to be enacted for the first
time vide, U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997. The
amended provision of 1997 has no application to the pending
revision applications before the Board of Revenue already
preferred under the then existing Section 219 of the Act. In the D
present case, the appellant has preferred revision under
Section 219 before the Board of Revenue against the order of
the Additional Commissioner in 1994. That revision is
maintainable in law under unamended Section 219 of the Act.
8. The view of the High Court is thus clearly wrong that the E
revision application preferred by the appellant before the Board
of Revenue under Section 219 of the Act was not maintainable.
9. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed, the impugned
order dated November 9, 2009 is set aside and Writ Petition F
No. 59678 of 2009 titled "Srikant and Ors. Vs. Board of
Revenue, UP., Lucknow and Ors." is restored to the file of the
Allahabad High Court for hearing and consideration on merits
in accordance with law. No costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed. G