# Ram Pal v. Board of Revenue U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1298
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-12-09
- **Case number:** Misc. Writ Petition No. 719(M/S) of 2002
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pal-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-and-others-41777
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Single Judge committed an error by
dismissing the writ petition.

34. Accordingly, the subsequent
enquiry proceedings under the order of
the District Magistrate (In-charge) dated
24.10.2001 and the impugned order date
29th April, 2002 are quashed. The
judgement of the learned Single Judge
dated 14.01.2003 is set aside. The appeal
is allowed and the matter stands remitted
to the Disciplinary Authority in terms of
Rule 9 of the 1999 Rules leaving it open
to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed
from the stage of the submission of the
first enquiry report. It shall be open to the
Disciplinary Authority to conclude the
proceedings as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.
---------

SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.12.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Misc. Writ Petition No. 719(M/S) of 2002

Ram Pal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. and others

 ...Respondents

U.P. Land Revenue Act-readwith U.P.
Land
laws
(Amendment)
Act
1997
Section-219-Second
Revision
before
Board
of
Revenue-held
not
maintainable-keeping
in
view
of
amended
provision
by
which
the
provision
of
Section
218
omittedamended
provision
enforcible
w.e.f.
18.08.1997-revision itself decided by
Addl. Commissioner in 2001-against
that order of remand by Board of
Revenue
itself
without
jurisdictionprotection of section 10 not available.

Held: Para 12

Thus what was been protected under
Section 10 is the reference made under
Section 218 of U.P.Land Revenue Act,
1901, which was pending before the
Board on 18th August, 1997 i.e. the date
of
commencement
of
the
said
amendment. Such pending reference shall
continue to be heard and decided by the
Board as the Act has not been enacted. It
is not the case of the parties before this
Court, in the case in hand, that any such
reference was pending before the Board
and that has been answered after 18th
August, 1997. The revision decided by the
Addl.
Commissioner
obviously
was
pending before him since no reference
was made to the Board. Atleast this is
evident from the record. Hence the
question of attracting Section 10 of U.P.
Act 20 of 1997 would not arise. The said
revision having been decided in 2001, no
further
revision
was
liable
to
be
entertained under Section 219 by the
Board as there was no other provision
except 219 wherein a revision could have
been decided by the Commissioner or the
Board, as the case may be, but not one
after the other as if the subsequent
authority is deciding the second revision.
In Shri Ram (supra) it appears that a
reference was made under Section 218 to
the Board before 18th August, 1997 and
after the amendment of the Act, Board of
Revenue remanded the matter to Addl.
Commissioner for deciding the matter as
a revision. This Court took the view that
such reference could not have been
remanded since it was not protected
under Section 10 of the Amendment Act
and ought to have been decided by the
Board itself.
Case law discussed:
1990 (90) RD 467, 2000 (18) LCD 1401, 1974
ALJ (72) 295, 1983 All. L.J. NOC 1, AIR 1957
All. 205, 1980 All. L.J. 904, Writ Petition No.
25961 of 2008(Smt. Anisa Khan Vs. State of
U.P. and others), 1996 (87) RD 569, 2004 (96)
RD 656, 2007 (102) RD 20
3 All] Ram Pal V. Board of Revenue U.P. and others
1299
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri K.S.Rastogi for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent No.1, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla
(respondent No.2), who is appearing in
person and Ms. Savita Jain appearing for
rest of the private respondents. As requested
and agreed by learned counsel for the
parties, this writ petition is being heard and
decided under the Rules of the Court at this
stage.

2. Basically, the orders impugned in
the writ petition arising out of the mutation
proceedings,
this
Court
would
have
declined to exercise its extra ordinary
equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India but considering
submission that the impugned revisional
order is wholly without jurisdiction, which
is a well established exception in such
matter, as referred above, I am inclined to
proceed
further
decide
the
matter
accordingly.

3. The short question up for
consideration is whether after amendment
made in 1997, second revision would lie or
not.

4. The petitioner initiated mutation
proceedings before Tehsildar Mohammadi,
District Khiri relying on a registered Willdeed dated 13.12.1990 alleged to be
executed by Shiv Narain Lal with regard to
the land situated in village Bhoora Pipri,
Pargana
and
Tehsil
Mohammadi.
Respondents No.2 to 6 preferred their
objection
challenging
the
Will.
The
execution as well as registration of Will
deed, both was challenged. The application
was ultimately allowed on 21.11.1995 and
Addl.
Tehsildar,
Mohammadi
(Kheri)
directed to record the name of petitioner and
his brother Ram Lal in place of Shiv
Narayan Lal. Respondents No.2 to 6 filed
an appeal before the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate Mohammadi (Kheri). The appeal
was dismissed on 03.09.1996 whereagainst
a revision was filed, which was rejected by
the Addl. Commissioner on 6th May, 2000.
The second revision preferred before the
Board of Revenue has been allowed by the
impugned order dated 29th August, 2001.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in view of U.P. Land Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1997 (U.P. Act 20 of
1997)
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"Amendment Act of 1997"), which came
into force on 18th August, 1997, Section
218 was omitted and 219 was substituted in
the Act conferring power upon Board of
Revenue or the Commissioner or the Addl.
Commissioner or the Collector etc. to
decide revisions. Hence second revision
was not maintainable, after the amendment,
before the Board of Revenue and in this
regard placed reliance on a single judge
decision in Shri Ram Vs. Board of
Revenue, U.P. and others 1999 (90) RD
467.

6. On the contrary, Ms Savita Jain
firstly contended that a notification under
Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as '1953
Act') has been published on 9th August,
2008 which included the land in question
and therefore, in view of Section 5(2) of
1953 Act, the writ petition shall stand
abated due to consolidation operation going
on in Village Bhoora Pipari, Post Office
Sisora Nikoompur, District Lakhimpur. She
as well as Sri Ram Prakash Shukla
(respondent No.2) (in person), contended
that the order of mutation was obtained by
the petitioner relying on a forged and
fictitious Will and therefore, the impugned
1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
order passed by the Board of Revenue
resulted in substantial justice, hence it is a
fit case whereunder Article 226 of the
Constitution of India this Court may not
exercise its equitable jurisdiction and even
if the second revision was not maintainable,
the order impugned may not be interferred.

7. It is further contended that it is not a
case
of
second
revision.
Prior
to
Amendment Act of 1997, the respondents
No. 2 to 6 had preferred an appeal before
the Addl. Commissioner under Section 218
but after the amendment of the statute, the
same was treated to be revision and has
been decided accordingly. Therefore, what
they say is that it is not a case of second
revision, and Board of Revenue has rightly
relied on the decision of this Court in Kali
Shankar Dwivedi Vs. Board of Revenue
& Anr. 2000 (18) LCD 1401.

8. Coming to the first question about
the abatement of the proceedings of writ
petition, taking recourse to Section 5(2)(a)
of 1953 Act, I find that this issue has been
decided by a Full Bench of this Court in
Udai Bhan Singh Vs. Board of Revenue,
U.P. at Allahabad & Ors. 1974 ALJ (72)
295 and the Court answered this issue in
para 16 of the judgment as under:

"By the Court.- The answer to the
question referred is that Sec.5(2)(a) of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has no
impact on writ petitions or special appeals
arising out of them in which judgments or
orders passed in suits or proceedings
relating to declaration of rights in land
covered by Notification under Sec. 4 of the
said Act are in challenge."

9. Therefore, the submission advanced
by Ms Savita Jain referring to Section 4
notification is negatived.

10. Now coming to the question
whether revision made before the Board of
Revenue is maintainable in view of the
amendment made in 1997, in my view, the
revision filed before the Board of Revenue
despite the aforesaid amendment would not
be maintainable.

11. I quote hereat Section 10 of U.P.
20 of 1997 which is a transitory provision
and has protected the pending revision and
reads as under:

"Notwithstanding anything contained
in this Act all cases referred to the Board
under Section 218 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901, or under Section 333-A
of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari0.00" Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as they stood
immediately before the commencement of
the Act and pending before the Board on the
date of such commencement shall continue
to be heard and decided by the Board as if
this Act has not been enacted."

12. Thus what was been protected
under Section 10 is the reference made
under Section 218 of U.P.Land Revenue
Act, 1901, which was pending before the
Board on 18th August, 1997 i.e. the date of
commencement of the said amendment.
Such pending reference shall continue to be
heard and decided by the Board as the Act
has not been enacted. It is not the case of the
parties before this Court, in the case in
hand, that any such reference was pending
before the Board and that has been
answered after 18th August, 1997. The
revision
decided
by
the
Addl.
Commissioner obviously was pending
before him since no reference was made to
the Board. Atleast this is evident from the
record. Hence the question of attracting
Section 10 of U.P. Act 20 of 1997 would
not arise. The said revision having been
3 All] Ram Pal V. Board of Revenue U.P. and others
1301
decided in 2001, no further revision was
liable to be entertained under Section 219
by the Board as there was no other
provision except 219 wherein a revision
could
have
been
decided
by
the
Commissioner or the Board, as the case
may be, but not one after the other as if the
subsequent authority is deciding the second
revision. In Shri Ram (supra) it appears
that a reference was made under Section
218 to the Board before 18th August, 1997
and after the amendment of the Act, Board
of Revenue remanded the matter to Addl.
Commissioner for deciding the matter as a
revision. This Court took the view that such
reference could not have been remanded
since it was not protected under Section 10
of the Amendment Act and ought to have
been decided by the Board itself.

13. In Kali Shanker Dwivedi (supra)
the detailed facts have not been given as to
when the matter was filed and decided by
the Commissioner and when the revision
was filed before the Board of Revenue. The
two authorities, in my view, as such may
not help the parties before me in answering
the issues specifically raised in this case. In
my view, the Board of Revenue has also
erred in law relying on the decision in Kali
Shanker Dwivedi (supra) without looking
into the fact that Section 10 of Amendment
Act of 1997 which says otherwise, was
confined to the reference already pending
before the Board of Revenue under Section
218 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 or
under Section 333-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act, 1950 and none else.

14. So far as the question of genuinity
of Will-deed is concerned, tentatively it
would not have been seen in summary
proceedings. It is always open to the party
aggrieved to take up the matter in regular
suit since an order passed in mutation
proceedings does not confer a title which
otherwise is not vest. For such purpose, a
regular suit is always a remedy open to the
party concerned. This Court in Arjun Vs.
Board of Revenue & others 1983 All. L.J.
NOC 1, placing reliance on Jaipal Vs.
Board of Revenue AIR 1957 All. 205 and
Lekhraj & another Vs. Board of Revenue
& others 1980 All. L.J. 904 dismissed the
writ petition challenging the revisional
order arising out of mutation proceedings,
observing that the aggrieved party has
efficacious alternative remedy of suit for
seeking redressal of his grievance, hence
petition is not maintainable.

15. Recently, an Hon'ble Single Judge
of this Court in Writ Petition No. 25961 of
2008 (Smt. Anisa Khan Vs. State of U.P.
and others) decided on 29.7.2010 placing
reliance on Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue
(supra), Summer Lal Vs. Board of
Revenue 1996 (87) RD 569, Sahed Jan @
Bonde Vs. Board of Revenue 2004 (96)
RD 656 and Jagdish Narain Vs. Board of
Revenue 2007 (102) RD 20, observed as
under:

"All the three authorities have decided
the mutation proceedings and as such being
summary in nature cannot be the subject
matter of interference in this writ petition
since the said impugned orders do not
confer any title on the respondents and are
only made for the purpose of either
realization of land revenue or to refer to
possession at that time."

16. Therefore the question of genuity
of Will deed cannot be decided in summary
proceedings.

17. In view of the above, writ petition
is allowed. The impugned order dated
29.08.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue
1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
(Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) is
hereby set aside.

18. There shall be no order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE.JURISDICTION
CIVIL.SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.11.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA KUMAR DIXIT, J.

Special Appeal No.-758 of 2009

Srmaamiksha Ve 5601 (M/S) 05

 ...Petitioner
Versus
University Of Lucknow Through Its Vice
Chancellor Lko. and other ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Inperson

Counsel for the Respondents:
U.N.Mishra

Constitution of India, Art.226-Right to
admission-petitioner
appellant
being
much below in merit of admission test in
3 years LLB course-writ court directed
the
V.C.
For
consideration
of
representation on assumption of existing
several
vacant
seat-rejected
order
challenged-by interim measure-appellant
allowed by the Court to peruse LLB and
result
declared-provisionally-appellant
got enrolled by Bar Council as an
Advocate-applied for admission in LLM in
meantime
writ
petition
dismissedconsidering Doctrine of merger interim
order merge in final order-Single Judge
dismissed
the
petition-held-properconsidering maxim "Actus Curiae neinem
gravabit"-appellant
spent
substantial
portion of his life-no allegation of fraud
in getting admission in LLB-order of
Single Judge modified maintaining the
direction
to
the
extent
for
refusal
admission in LLM course-but set-a-side
to the extent of rejecting LLB degree
with all consequential benefits

Held: Para 18 and 19

Accordingly, we are of the view that
benefit availed by the the appellant in
pursuing her study of LL.B. Course, and
consequential
registration
as
an
Advocate with the Uttar Pradesh State
Bar Council, should not be annulled.

However, so far as the finding recorded
by the Hon'ble Single Judge with regard
to
admission
in
LL.M.
Course
is
concerned,
requires
no
interference.
Since the admission of the appellant in
LL.B. Course was in pursuance of interim
order passed by this Court, we are
maintaining the appellant's right, on the
basis of admission of LL.B. Course,
however,
the
appellant
cannot
be
permitted to pursue her further studies
in pursuance of the orders of this Court
or application moved for LL.M. Course,
2009.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.)

1. Heard the appellant in person and
the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present appeal under Rule 5
Chapter VIII of Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952, is against the judgment and
order dated 6.10.2009, passed by Hon'ble
Single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition
No.5601 (M/S) of 2005.

3. The appellant preferred Writ
Petition No.5601 (M/S) of 2005 whereby,
an order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the
Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University was
impugned. By the said order dated
20.10.2005, the Vice-Chancellor of the
University has denied admission to the
appellant in LLB Course and rejected
representation on the ground that appellant
does not qualify on merit being placed at