# Brahm Singh v. Board of Revenue and - **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 741 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2008-07-07 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Recall/ Modification Application No. 7046 of 2004 - **Bench:** S.U. Khan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brahm-singh-v-board-of-revenue-and-41186 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Land Revenue Act-Section 28-correction of map-by Chief Revenue Officerobjection regarding power of collectorsheld-misconceived-by G.O. dated 07.03.1996 the post of CRO re designated as Addl. District Magistratein view of full bench decision of Brahm Singh case-Addl Collectors entitled to exercise the power of Collector under section 14(A)14 of LR Act. 742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008 Held: Para 7 & 8 From the above it is quite clear that Chief Revenue Officer have been redesignated as C.R.O.- A.D.M. (Land Revenue). This clearly amounts to conferring the power upon them to hear the cases under Land Revenue Act. In fact by virtue of the aforesaid G.O. it is evident that the main duty of Chief Revenue Officer is to hear the cases under Land Revenue Act. In a recent full bench authority in Civil Misc. writ petition No.40986 of 2001 Brahm Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and others decided on 29.4.2008 it has been held that all Additional Collectors are entitled to exercise the power of Collector under Section 14-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act. Case law discussed: Civil Misc. writ petition No.40986 of 2001 Brahm Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and others decided on 29.4.2008 ## Text 3 All] Bahraich Deen V. Board of Revenue, Lucknow and others 741 prima faice case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The word 'sufficient ground' used under Section 203 Cr.P.C. have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction." 11. It is true that often, complaints are filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. with a motive or to cause unnecessary harassment, to wreck vengeance, to pressurise the opponent to bring them to their own terms etc instead of preferring an alternative remedy by way of approaching civil court. Thus to meet out with these situation before issuing the process a Magistrate has to essentially keep in mind the scheme contained in the provision of Section 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. Therefore, a Magistrate should pass an order judicially and not mechanically or in routine manner. 12. In view of the legal position herein above and having regard to the facts stated above, it is clear that after the enquiry as contemplated under Section 200 and 203 Cr.P.C. if the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused, he may issue summon or warrants as the case may be and it is settled, that at this stage the court is no required to appraise or evaluate the evidence as if it was finally deciding the case. 13. Thus, in my view, having considered to the facts stated and the legal position framed above, the Magistrate has committed a serious error in law. 14. The petition is hereby allowed. 15. The order dated 10.4.2008 passed by ACJM Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) and the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the revisional court are hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to make a fresh look into the matter keeping in view of the observations made above and then pass order judiciously. Petition allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J. Civil Misc. Recall/ Modification Application No. 7046 of 2004 Bahraich Deen ...Petitioner Versus Board of Revenue, Lucknow and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Hari Shanker Mishra Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V. K. Singh Sri R.K. Srivastava S.C. Land Revenue Act-Section 28-correction of map-by Chief Revenue Officerobjection regarding power of collectorsheld-misconceived-by G.O. dated 07.03.1996 the post of CRO re designated as Addl. District Magistratein view of full bench decision of Brahm Singh case-Addl Collectors entitled to exercise the power of Collector under section 14(A)14 of LR Act. 742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008 Held: Para 7 & 8 From the above it is quite clear that Chief Revenue Officer have been redesignated as C.R.O.- A.D.M. (Land Revenue). This clearly amounts to conferring the power upon them to hear the cases under Land Revenue Act. In fact by virtue of the aforesaid G.O. it is evident that the main duty of Chief Revenue Officer is to hear the cases under Land Revenue Act. In a recent full bench authority in Civil Misc. writ petition No.40986 of 2001 Brahm Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and others decided on 29.4.2008 it has been held that all Additional Collectors are entitled to exercise the power of Collector under Section 14-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act. Case law discussed: Civil Misc. writ petition No.40986 of 2001 Brahm Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and others decided on 29.4.2008 (Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Original restoration application was mis-placed hence this duplicate copy of restoration application filed alongwith Listing Application No.106584 of 2004 was directed to be treated as original restoration application. 3. This restoration application has been filed for recall of my order dated 18.9.2004. The operative portion of my judgment dated 18.9.2004 is quoted below: "The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file the order of Collector dated 26.3. 1999 before the trial court. The trial court shall call for a fresh report from L.R. Inspector on the basis of the order of Collector dated 26.3.1999, which is annexure 14 to the writ petition. Copy of the corrected map is on page 70 of the writ petition." 4. In-fact I did not decide anything finally through my aforesaid judgment. However in my judgment I mentioned that the Collector, Allahabad passed final order on 26.3.1999 in proceedings for correction of map under Section 28 of Land Revenue Act. 5. The only argument of learned counsel for applicant in this recall/modification application is that Annexure-14 to the writ petition order dated 26.3.1999 has been passed by Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad and under Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act Chief Revenue Officer has got no power to discharge the functions of Collector. In this regard a letter dated 29.05.1986 written by Secretary, Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow to all District Magistrates has been shown. In the said letter it is mentioned that in order to streamline the administration of revenue different posts have been sanctioned including 15 posts in 15 districts of Chief Revenue: Officer through Government Order dated 12:- 2.1986. Some other posts were also created through the said Government Order. In the letter dated 29.5.1986 functions of different newly created post holders were enumerated. In respect of functions of Chief Revenue Officer under clause-II it was mentioned that Chief Revenue Officer (C.R.O.) would decide revenue suits and appeals. Thereafter it was mentioned that approval of the Government was being sought for conferring the powers of Additional Collector under Land Revenue Act upon the Chief Revenue Officer. The main 3 All] U.P.S.R.T.C. V. Bulaki Das and another 743 argument of learned counsel for applicant is that thereafter the government never conferred the said power upon C.R.O. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon Section 234 of Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act wherein it has been mentioned that Board may with the previous sanction of the Government make rules. 6. In this regard reference may be made to a Government Order dated.07.03.1996 no.1805/1I-(2) 1996 communicated by Kalika Prasad Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh to different authorities including Commissioners and D.M. The first para of the said Communication/Government Order translated in English reads as under: "On the above subject, I have been directed to say that Governor was pleased to grant permission for change of designation of those P.C.S. Officers who were appointed on the post of Chief Revenue Officer in a District to Chief Revenue Officer-Additional District Magistrate (land revenue)." 7. From the above it is quite clear that Chief Revenue Officer have been redesignated as C.R.O.- A.D.M. (Land Revenue). This clearly amounts to conferring the power upon them to hear the cases under Land Revenue Act. In fact by virtue of the aforesaid G.O. it is evident that the main duty of Chief Revenue Officer is to hear the cases under Land Revenue Act. 8. In a recent full bench authority in Civil Misc. writ petition No.40986 of 2001 Brahm Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and others decided on 29.4.2008 it has been held that all Additional Collectors are entitled to exercise the power of Collector under Section 14-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act. 9. Accordingly I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant in recall/modification application that Chief Revenue Officer is not Additional Collector and can not exercise the powers of Collector in respect of matters under Section 28 Land Revenue Act. 10. Recall/Modification application is therefore dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J. THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J. Civil Misc. Application No. 8617 of 2003 U.P.S.R.T.C. ...Petitioner Versus. Bulaki Das and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Samir Sharma Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Brij Raj Singh Sri R.P. Singh S.C. (A) Constitution of India, Article 226Service Law-forfeiture of future salaryworkman working as driver allowed the cleaner to play the bus-which resulted death of 3 passengers-disciplinary authority while passing dismissal order forfeited the balance salary of suspension period-no opportunity of hearing required in absence of statuary provision.