# M/S Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd v. Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 869 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2015-12-16 - **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-santosha-craft-pvt-ltd-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-at-lucknow-ors-39035 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote Civil law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 161 - Exchange of land - Suo motu revision - Board of Revenue - Section 219 - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Jurisdiction - Board of Revenue, Lucknow - Board of Revenue, Allahabad - Section 333 - Board Resolution dated 9.10.1990 - Order without jurisdiction - Nullity - Writ of certiorari - Order quashed. Through this writ petition prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow in suo motu Revision No. 813 of 2005-06. (Para-2) The aforesaid revision has been maintained with respect to six cases, i.e. 1. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Sri Ram and others; 2.Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam; 3. Avon Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam and others; 4. Vinod Kumar vs. Nagar Nigam and others; 5 Vinod Kumar and others vs. Nagar Nigam and 6. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam.(Para-3) The petitioner is concerned with Case No. 4/2000 (Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam, Moradabad) by which on the agreement of the parties the exchange of land under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the Act of 1950) was allowed with respect to Gata no. 245 M measuring 0.802 Hec. situated in Village Harthala, Ahatmali, Moradabad by expunging the name of Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Directors, Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq son of Sri Mohd. Rashid and Sri Mohd. Akbar son of Sri Mohd Arshad and recording the name of Nagar Nigam and over Plot Nos. 386 measuring about 0.085 Hec., 460 measuring about 0.243 Hec., 469 measuring about 0.474 Hec. total of three plots measuring about 0.802 Hec. ordered for recording the name of Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Directors, Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq son of Sri Mohd. Rashid and Sri Mohd. Akbar son of Sri Mohd Arshad.(Para-4) It appears that in certain other cases too land of Nagar Nigam was exchanged with other persons. Learned Member, Board of Revenue in suo motu proceeding under section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 ( in short the Act of 1901) has entertained the aforesaid revision and stayed the order of exchange dated 11.9.2000 passed in Case No. 4/2000 and transmitted the matter before the 870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Board of Revenue, Allahabad after the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Allahabad for adjudication.(Para-5) The facts of the case briefly stated are that an entry was made by the Lekhpal in the khasra of non Z.A. land situated in Mauja Sahatwar Urf mahatpal, Pargana Khareed, Tehsil Bansdeeh, District Ballia. The petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 33/39 for expunging this entry alleging that the name of Vishwanath had wrongly been recorded under Class 15(2) in the khasra.(Para-3) It appears that the respondent put in appearance but subsequently absented himself. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bansdeeh by his order dated 11.05.2000, directed that the entry made in the khasra be expunged. (Para-4) The contesting respondent thereafter filed a restoration application which was rejected on the ground that since he had appeared in the proceedings initially but, subsequently absented himself, the restoration application was not maintainable.(Para-5) Against the order rejecting the restoration application, the respondent preferred a revision. This revision has been allowed by the impugned order.(Para-6) Held:(Paras 12-13) ## Text 3 All. M/S Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow & Ors. 869 ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABD 16.12.2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J. Writ B No.- 29169 Of 2006 M/S Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow & Ors . ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Bidhan Chandra Rai, A.N. Bhargava,G L Chaudhary,G.C.Pant,Zafeer Ahmad Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., P.C. Nagar,Prem Chandra Civil law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 161 - Exchange of land - Suo motu revision - Board of Revenue - Section 219 - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Jurisdiction - Board of Revenue, Lucknow - Board of Revenue, Allahabad - Section 333 - Board Resolution dated 9.10.1990 - Order without jurisdiction - Nullity - Writ of certiorari - Order quashed. Through this writ petition prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow in suo motu Revision No. 813 of 2005-06. (Para-2) The aforesaid revision has been maintained with respect to six cases, i.e. 1. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Sri Ram and others; 2.Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam; 3. Avon Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam and others; 4. Vinod Kumar vs. Nagar Nigam and others; 5 Vinod Kumar and others vs. Nagar Nigam and 6. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam.(Para-3) The petitioner is concerned with Case No. 4/2000 (Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam, Moradabad) by which on the agreement of the parties the exchange of land under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the Act of 1950) was allowed with respect to Gata no. 245 M measuring 0.802 Hec. situated in Village Harthala, Ahatmali, Moradabad by expunging the name of Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Directors, Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq son of Sri Mohd. Rashid and Sri Mohd. Akbar son of Sri Mohd Arshad and recording the name of Nagar Nigam and over Plot Nos. 386 measuring about 0.085 Hec., 460 measuring about 0.243 Hec., 469 measuring about 0.474 Hec. total of three plots measuring about 0.802 Hec. ordered for recording the name of Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Directors, Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq son of Sri Mohd. Rashid and Sri Mohd. Akbar son of Sri Mohd Arshad.(Para-4) It appears that in certain other cases too land of Nagar Nigam was exchanged with other persons. Learned Member, Board of Revenue in suo motu proceeding under section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 ( in short the Act of 1901) has entertained the aforesaid revision and stayed the order of exchange dated 11.9.2000 passed in Case No. 4/2000 and transmitted the matter before the 870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Board of Revenue, Allahabad after the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Allahabad for adjudication.(Para-5) The facts of the case briefly stated are that an entry was made by the Lekhpal in the khasra of non Z.A. land situated in Mauja Sahatwar Urf mahatpal, Pargana Khareed, Tehsil Bansdeeh, District Ballia. The petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 33/39 for expunging this entry alleging that the name of Vishwanath had wrongly been recorded under Class 15(2) in the khasra.(Para-3) It appears that the respondent put in appearance but subsequently absented himself. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bansdeeh by his order dated 11.05.2000, directed that the entry made in the khasra be expunged. (Para-4) The contesting respondent thereafter filed a restoration application which was rejected on the ground that since he had appeared in the proceedings initially but, subsequently absented himself, the restoration application was not maintainable.(Para-5) Against the order rejecting the restoration application, the respondent preferred a revision. This revision has been allowed by the impugned order.(Para-6) Held:(Paras 12-13) 1. There is substance in the submission of the learned Additional Chief Standing counsel but the question would be as to whether revision would lie or suo motu power can be exercised by the learned Member, Board of Revenue sitting at Lucknow while invoking powers under section 219 of the Act, 1901 or it would lie under section 333 of the Act, 1950 at Allahabad in view of the conferment of the jurisdiction as finds mention in Board Resolution dated 9.10.1990, which, according to the respondent has not yet been diluted and this jurisdiction is literally followed at Lucknow as well as at Allahabad. Admittedly, here the proceeding of exchange under section 161 of the Act of 1950 has been questioned, therefore, the Board of Revenue, Allahabad will have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon under section 333 of the Act, 1950. Otherwise also the order passed under section 161 of the Act, 150 is appealable and the appeal would lie before the Commissioner of the Division or any other authority prescribed in the Schedule, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue sitting at Lucknow, while exercising power under section 219 of the Act, 1901 is without jurisdiction. It is settled that any order without jurisdiction is nullity. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization vs. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd. (2004)9 SCC 619, Sarup Singh and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. (2011) 11 SCC 198 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Shri Jawahar Inter College and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. in Special Appeal No. 164 of 2012 decided on 25.1.2012. 2. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow in suo motu Revision No. 813 of 2005-06 in respect of the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, passing of this order will not preclude the State Government to avail such other remedies as available to it under law. Case Law discussed: Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization vs. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619 - para 12 2. Sarup Singh and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr., (2011) 11 SCC 198 - para 12 3 All. M/S Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow & Ors. 871 .3. Committee of Management Shri Jawahar Inter College and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors., Special Appeal No. 164 of 2012 decided on 25.1.2012 - para 12 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J ) 1. Heard Sri A.N.Bhargava along with Sri G.C.Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjai Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents. 2. Through this writ petition prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow in suo motu Revision No. 813 of 2005-06. 3. The aforesaid revision has been maintained with respect to six cases, i.e. 1. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Sri Ram and others; 2.Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam; 3. Avon Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam and others; 4. Vinod Kumar vs. Nagar Nigam and others; 5 Vinod Kumar and others vs. Nagar Nigam and 6. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam. 4. The petitioner is concerned with Case No. 4/2000 (Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Nagar Nigam, Moradabad) by which on the agreement of the parties the exchange of land under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the Act of 1950) was allowed with respect to Gata no. 245 M measuring 0.802 Hec. situated in Village Harthala, Ahatmali, Moradabad by expunging the name of Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Directors, Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq son of Sri Mohd. Rashid and Sri Mohd. Akbar son of Sri Mohd Arshad and recording the name of Nagar Nigam and over Plot Nos. 386 measuring about 0.085 Hec., 460 measuring about 0.243 Hec., 469 measuring about 0.474 Hec. total of three plots measuring about 0.802 Hec. ordered for recording the name of Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Directors, Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq son of Sri Mohd. Rashid and Sri Mohd. Akbar son of Sri Mohd Arshad. 5. It appears that in certain other cases too land of Nagar Nigam was exchanged with other persons. Learned Member, Board of Revenue in suo motu proceeding under section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 ( in short the Act of 1901) has entertained the aforesaid revision and stayed the order of exchange dated 11.9.2000 passed in Case No. 4/2000 and transmitted the matter before the Board of Revenue, Allahabad after the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Allahabad for adjudication. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed in which on 26.5.2006 the following order was passed: "It is submitted by Sri Shashi Nandan learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Board or Revenue could not exercising powers under section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act pass order in revision arising out of proceedings under section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act. It is also submitted that in view of the division 872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES of powers between the Board of Revenue at Allahabad and Lucknow, the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow could not have taken suo motu cognisance and has passed the impugned order. Standing counsel represents respondents 1, 2 and 5. Nagar Nigam is represented by Sri Prem Chand. The respondents are granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List the writ petition on 24.7.2006. Until the date of next listing, further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order dated 3.5.2006 before the Board of Revenue shall remain stayed." 7. Pursuant thereto counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that the revision could be entertained under section 219 of the Act, 1901 at Lucknow too as initial order of exchange was contrary to the provisions of the law. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on 23.11.2015 the following order was passed by this Court: "The petitioner's case is limited only with regard to the decision dated 11.9.2000 passed in Case No. 4/2000 by the Sub Divisional Officer Moradabad. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid order was passed under section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) therefore, the revision could not be entertained by the learned Board of Revenue sitting at Lucknow as the Member, Board of Revenue has only power with respect to the cases relating to the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and not the cases arising out of the proceeding of the Act. Prima facie, I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel seeks time to obtain instruction. As prayed put up on 26th November, 2015 in the additional cause list." 9. Pursuant thereto instructions have been obtained and decision of the Board dated 9.10.1990 has been shown to the Court, relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: "इलाहाबाद के न्यार्यक सदस्यों के बीच कायि विभािन श्री नाथू लाल, सदस्य, की सेिार्निृवत्त के पिातृ उनके र्मण्डलों का कायि श्री ए0यू0 खान सदस्य को हस्तान्तररत ककया गया था। श्री ए0यू0 खान ने कायािर्धकार दशािते हुये कायि के बराबर पुनवििभािन का अनुरोध ककया था। फलस्िरूप रािस्ि पररषद इलाहाबाद के न्यार्यक सदस्यों के बीच कायि के पुनवििभािन हेतु एक बैिक आि कदनाींक 20-9-1990 को सम्पन्न हुई ल्िसर्में र्नम्न र्नणिय र्लये गयेA 1- यकद ककसी सदस्य ने प्रारल्म्भक स्तर या प्रथर्म अपील / र्नगरानी र्में कोइ्् र्नणिय कदया है तो रािस्ि पररषद र्में ऐसे िाद उनके र्लींक सदस्य के सर्मक्ष सूचनाबद्ध ककया िायेंगे। 3 All. M/S Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow & Ors. 873 2- पूिि र्नणिय के अनुसार भू-रािस्ि अर्धर्नयर्म के अन्तगित िाद लखनऊ र्में तथा िर्मीींदार उन्र्मूलन तथा भूर्र्म सुधार अर्धर्नयर्म के अन्तगित िाद इलाहाबाद र्में सुने िायेंगे। लखनऊ ल्स्थत सदस्यों के अध्यक्ष के बीच कायि का बींटिारा अध्यक्ष के आदेशानुसार होगा।" 10. From the perusal of the aforesaid instructions it is apparent that the cases relating to the provisions contained under the Act of 1950 the Board of Revenue at Allahabad will have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon whereas the cases arising out of the proceeding initiated under the Act of 1901 the Board of Revenue at Lucknow will have jurisdiction to decide the cases. 11. Sri Goswami, learned additional chief standing counsel, appearing for the State submits that the revision would be maintainable against the order where there is no provision of appeal or where there is provision of appeal but remedy of appeal has not been availed. Therefore, it cannot be said that revision is not maintainable. In his submission the language used under section 333 of the Act, 1950 and Section 219 of the Act, 1901 are almost identical, therefore, it cannot be said that the revision against the order of exchange would not lie. 12. There is substance in the submission of the learned Additional Chief Standing counsel but the question would be as to whether revision would lie or suo motu power can be exercised by the learned Member, Board of Revenue sitting at Lucknow while invoking powers under section 219 of the Act, 1901 or it would lie under section 333 of the Act, 1950 at Allahabad in view of the conferment of the jurisdiction as finds mention in Board Resolution dated 9.10.1990, which, according to the respondent has not yet been diluted and this jurisdiction is literally followed at Lucknow as well as at Allahabad. Admittedly, here the proceeding of exchange under section 161 of the Act of 1950 has been questioned, therefore, the Board of Revenue, Allahabad will have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon under section 333 of the Act, 1950. Otherwise also the order passed under section 161 of the Act, 150 is appealable and the appeal would lie before the Commissioner of the Division or any other authority prescribed in the Schedule, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue sitting at Lucknow, while exercising power under section 219 of the Act, 1901 is without jurisdiction. It is settled that any order without jurisdiction is nullity. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization vs. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd. (2004)9 SCC 619, Sarup Singh and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. (2011) 11 SCC 198 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Shri Jawahar Inter College and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. in Special Appeal No. 164 of 2012 decided on 25.1.2012. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow in suo motu Revision No. 813 of 2005-06 in respect of the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, passing of this 874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES order will not preclude the State Government to avail such other remedies as available to it under law. ---------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR KUMAR SAXENA, J. Criminal Revision No.- 3711 of 2004 Smt. Shakeela Bano ...Revisionist Versus Saleem Uddin ....Opposite Party Counsel for the Revisionist: Lihazur R. Khan, Ashutosh Pandey,Lihazur Khan,Z. Khan. Counsel for the Opposite Party: Govt. Advocate, M.A. Qadeer,Manish Kumar Nigam,Mohd. Waris. Criminal Procedure Code 1973. - Section 125 - Muslim wife - Divorce - Triple talaq - Factum of divorce not proved - Pronouncement of talaq during cross-examination - Reasonable cause - Attempt of reconciliation - Two arbiters - Divorce not valid mode - Maintainability of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Divorcee Muslim woman - Entitled to maintenance - Till she remarries - Order dated 29.03.2004 set aside - Revision allowed - Matter remanded This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.03.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. Briefly stated facts are that revisionist-Smt. Shakeela Bano was married with Saleem Uddin (opposite party) on 15.11.1987. A son was born out of wedlock in the year 1988, who expired after 7-8 months. Another child was born, who also died in the year 1989. Revisionist was expelled from her in-law's house in the stage of pregnancy, which compelled her to file application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 04.11.2000.(Para-3) Husband, in his written statement while admitting the marriage made allegations of adultery against wife and that he divorced on 01.12.1989 by pronouncing triple divorce, consequently, application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. Other defences were also taken. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 28.11.2002 allowed the application and awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- per month towards maintenance from the date of order. (Para-4) Two revisions were filed against the aforesaid order, one by husband challenging the order on the ground that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable and the other one by wife seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance, that too, from the date of application.(Para-5) Learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that Smt. Shakeela Bano having been divorced by husband, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable. Consequently, revision filed by husband was allowed and the revision filed by wife was dismissed. Against the order dated 29.03.2004