# Smt. Umman Bibi v. Board of Revenue U.P.Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 825
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-07-22
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 4174 of 2015
- **Bench:** Ritu Raj Awasthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-umman-bibi-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-lucknow-ors-43201
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

U.P. Land Revenue Act, Section-219 (2)
with Act no. 20 of 1997-Maintainability of
Second Revision-first revision filed before
commissioner-during pendency of first
revision-against
same
order
second
revision filed before Board of Revenuefirst revision before commissioner stood
dismissed as withdrawn-before admission
of Second Revision-argument that when
in
second
revision
dated
fixed
for
admission-pending first revision before
commissioner was withdrawn-held-when
amended provision put bar of second
revision-withdrawl without liberty to file
fresh-larger Bench of Board rightly-held
not maintainable-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-14
It is immaterial whether the second
revision preferred by the petitioner had
come up for admission on 21.2.2015 i.e.,
at the time when the first revision was
already dismissed as withdrawn. Since
no liberty was sought or given while
withdrawing the first revision, as such, I
am of the considered opinion that the
second
revision
preferred
by
the
petitioner was not maintainable. The
larger Bench of the Board of Revenue by
the impugned judgment and order has
rightly come to conclusion that the
second revision by the petitioner before
Board of Revenue was not maintainable.
The larger Bench was also right in
dismissing the revision preferred by the
petitioner as there was no question of
remanding or sending the matter back to
the
authority
who
had
made
the
reference to the larger Bench, once the
larger Bench of the Board of Revenue
had come to conclusion that the second
revision was not maintainable.

## Text

2 All] Smt. Umman Bibi Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow & Ors.
825
and Karnataka SRTS v. Ashrafulla
Khan)."
13. The ratio of the judgments in
Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain (supra) and
Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel (supra), is
that the order of waiving the statutory
requirements can only be passed by the
Supreme Court in exercise of its power
under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India and that such power is not vested in
any other Court.
14. In the background of the above
legal position propounded by the Supreme
Court, I may now advert to the grounds
pleaded by the petitioners, in support of
their prayers to curtail the statutory period
of six months under Section 13-B(2) of
the Act, and to direct that the petition for
divorce by mutual consent be disposed of,
expeditiously. It has been averred in the
petition, and submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioners that the parties have not
been cohabiting with each other or
performing their marital obligations since
the year 2012. As the marriage has broken
down
irretrievably
and
both
the
petitioners have mutually agreed that it be
dissolved, the waiting period of six
months ought to be curtailed. In this
regard, reliance has been placed upon the
judgments of the Supreme Court and this
Court, quoted hereinabove.
15. It is clear from the judgments of
the Supreme Court reproduced herein
above that in curtailing the statutory
period of six months and granting a
decree of divorce by mutual consent, the
Supreme Court has exercised power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
This power is not available to any other
Court in the land, including this Court. In
Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain (supra), the
Supreme Court has clearly held, in no
uncertain terms, that the doctrine of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not
available even to the High Courts which
do not have powers similar to those
exercised by the Supreme Court under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Neither can the High Court, nor the Civil
Court, can pass orders before the period
prescribed under the relevant provisions
of the Act, or on grounds not provided for
in Section 13 and 13-B of the statute. This
principle of law has been reiterated by the
Supreme Court in Manish Goel v. Rohini
Goel (supra).
16. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of
the considered view that the grievance of
the petitioners for truncating the statutory
waiting period of six months envisaged
under Section 13-B(2) of the Act, for the
reason that their marriage has broken down
irretrievably, is, therefore, not within the
scope of adjudication of this Court,
considering that such power can be
exercised only by the Apex Court under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
17. So far as the judgments, which
have been relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the same are of
no avail to the petitioners in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
18. The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.07.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.
Misc. Single No. 4174 of 2015
826
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Smt. Umman Bibi
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P.Lucknow & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Atul Dixit
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Yogesh Singh
U.P. Land Revenue Act, Section-219 (2)
with Act no. 20 of 1997-Maintainability of
Second Revision-first revision filed before
commissioner-during pendency of first
revision-against
same
order
second
revision filed before Board of Revenuefirst revision before commissioner stood
dismissed as withdrawn-before admission
of Second Revision-argument that when
in
second
revision
dated
fixed
for
admission-pending first revision before
commissioner was withdrawn-held-when
amended provision put bar of second
revision-withdrawl without liberty to file
fresh-larger Bench of Board rightly-held
not maintainable-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-14
It is immaterial whether the second
revision preferred by the petitioner had
come up for admission on 21.2.2015 i.e.,
at the time when the first revision was
already dismissed as withdrawn. Since
no liberty was sought or given while
withdrawing the first revision, as such, I
am of the considered opinion that the
second
revision
preferred
by
the
petitioner was not maintainable. The
larger Bench of the Board of Revenue by
the impugned judgment and order has
rightly come to conclusion that the
second revision by the petitioner before
Board of Revenue was not maintainable.
The larger Bench was also right in
dismissing the revision preferred by the
petitioner as there was no question of
remanding or sending the matter back to
the
authority
who
had
made
the
reference to the larger Bench, once the
larger Bench of the Board of Revenue
had come to conclusion that the second
revision was not maintainable.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)
1.
Notice on behalf of opposite
parties no.1 to 3 has been accepted by
learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas
notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 4
and 5 has been accepted by Mr. Yogesh
Singh, Advocate.
2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.
3. Since a trivial question is
involved in this writ petition, as such,
with the consent of parties' counsel the
writ petition is being decided finally at the
admission stage.
4.
The instant writ petition has been
filed challenging the judgment and order
dated 29.06.2015 passed on reference by
larger Bench of the Board of Revenue in
Revision No.89/L.R./2015/District Ambedkar
Nagar.
5. As per given facts of the case, the
Tehsildar, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar
Nagar vide order dated 12.05.2014 had
decided the mutation proceedings under
Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act by
holding that the petitioner is not the
second wife of late Abrar Husain. The
orders were passed in favour of opposite
parties no.4 and 5. The appeal preferred
by the petitioner under Section 210 of
Land Revenue Act was dismissed by Sub
Divisional Officer vide judgment and
order dated 29.12.2014. It was thereafter
that the petitioner had preferred revision
under Section 219 Land Revenue Act
initially
before
the
Commissioner,
Faizabad Division, Faizabad on 6.1.2015
2 All] Smt. Umman Bibi Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow & Ors.
827
(for convenience it is mentioned as 'first
revision'). An application for withdrawal
was moved on 29.1.2015. The said
application was allowed and the revision
was dismissed as not pressed vide order
dated 29.1.2015.
6. The petitioner had preferred
another revision under Section 219 of
Land Revenue Act before the Board of
Revenue, Lucknow on 12.1.2015 (for
convenience it is mentioned as 'second
revision'). The second revision, on being
filed, was directed to be listed for
admission on 21.2.2015. The opposite
parties no.4 and 5 had raised objections
before the Board of Revenue regarding
maintainability of second revision on the
ground that it is barred under Section 219
(2) of Land Revenue Act. The learned
Member of Board of Revenue vide order
dated 21.2.2015 had referred the matter to
the larger Bench for authoritative decision
as he had observed that there were
conflicting judgments on the issue. It was
thereafter that the larger Bench of the
Board of Revenue had considered the
issue in question and by the impugned
order has come to conclusion that in the
given facts and circumstances the second
revision preferred by the petitioner was
not maintainable and has accordingly
dismissed the second revision.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the judgment and order
passed by the larger Bench of Board of
Revenue is patently wrong and illegal. It
is submitted that amendment in Section
219 of Land Revenue Act was enacted
vide U.P. Act No.20 of 1997 with effect
from 18th August, 1997. As per the
amended Section 219, sub Section (2) of
Land Revenue Act, which is relevant for
the controversy involved in the present
petition, 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 to 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.
8. The submission is that the first
revision preferred by the petitioner before
the Commissioner Faizabad Division,
Faizabad was withdrawn as not pressed
even before the second revision was
considered for admission by the Board of
Revenue, as such, it cannot be said that
the revision preferred by the petitioner
before the Board of Revenue was not
maintainable. It is submitted that the
language of Sub-Section (2) of Land
Revenue Act clearly provides that "no
further application by same person shall
be entertained by any other of them".
Emphasis
is
that
at
the
time
of
entertainment i.e., the time when the case
was considered by the Board of Revenue,
it was to be seen whether any revision
against the same impugned order was
pending before any other authority or not.
Since the petitioner had already got the
first revision dismissed as withdrawn/not
pressed at the time when the second
revision was considered for admission by
the Board of Revenue, as such, the bar
imposed under Sectin 219 (2) of Land
Revenue Act will not be attracted.
9. Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Yogesh
Singh, learned counsel for opposite
parties no. 4 and 5, on the other hand
submits that it is irrelevant as to when the
second revision was considered for
admission. The question is as to whether
828
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the second revision preferred by the
petitioner before the Board of Revenue
was at all maintainable or not. It is
submitted that Sub-Section (2) of Section
219 of Land Revenue Act clearly provides
that no second application for revision can
be moved by any person, in case he has
already preferred a revision before the
Board of Revenue or the Commissioner,
or the Additional Commissioner, or the
Collector or to the Record Officer or to
the Settlement Officer, against the same
order.
10.
I
have
considered
the
submissions made by parties counsel and
gone through the records.
11. The sole question involved in
this writ petition is whether the revision
preferred by the petitioner before the
Board of Revenue could be treated as a
second revision against the impugned
order dated 12.5.2015 passed by Tehsildar
and order dated 29.12.2014 passed by Sub
Divisional Officer and whether the
revision preferred by the petitioner before
the Board of Revenue was maintainable
when
the
petitioner
had
already
withdrawn the earlier revision (first
revision).
12. In order to decide the aforesaid
question, it is relevant to first examine the
relevant provision i.e., Section 219 of
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. For
convenience Section 219 of U.P. Land
Revenue Act reads as under:-
"[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 Commissioner or
the Additional Commissioner or the
Collector or the Record 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.]"
13. Before amendment in Section 219
of Land Revenue act the revision was first
preferred
before
the
Commissioner/Additional
Commissioner,
as the case may be, under Section 218 of
Land Revenue Act and thereafter revision
could be filed under Section 219 of Land
Revenue Act. Vide U.P. Act No.20 of 1997
Section 218 has been omitted and Section
219 has been amended. Now second
revision is barred. Under Sub-Section (2) of
Section 219 of Land Revenue Act it has
been specifically provided that if an
application for revision has been moved by
2 All] Smt. Umman Bibi Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow & Ors.
829
any person either to the Board or to the
Commissioner,
or
to
the
Additional
Commissioner or to 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,
meaning thereby that in case any person has
preferred any revision under Section 219 of
Land Revenue Act, he is not entitled to file
any other revision against the same order
before any other authority. It is the admitted
case of the petitioner that against the order
passed in appeal under Section 210 of Land
Revenue Act dated 29.12.2014, he had first
preferred a revision under Section 219 of
Land
Revenue
Act
before
the
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad. This revision was preferred on
6.1.2015. During pendency of first revision,
petitioner had preferred second revision
against the same order before the Board of
Revenue on 12.1.2015. It was thereafter that
the petitioner had moved an application for
withdrawal of first revision before the
Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad
on 29.1.2015 which was allowed and the
first revision was dismissed as not pressed
vide order dated 29.1.2015. The second
revision preferred by the petitioner came up
for admission on 21.2.2015. At that time an
objection regarding maintainability of this
revision was raised by the opposite parties.
Learned Member of Board of Revenue
considering the submissions had referred
the matter to the larger Bench and it was
thereafter that by the impugned order the
larger Bench of Board of Revenue has held
that the second revision preferred by the
petitioner was not maintainable.
14. So far as the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
second revision preferred by the petitioner
had come up for admission before the
Board of Revenue on 21.2.2015 and at
that time no revision was pending, as
such, it cannot be treated to be a second
revision and Board of Revenue has
wrongly come to conclusion that it was
not maintainable is concerned, suffice is
to observe that the provision under
Section 219 (2) of Land Revenue Act are
very much clear. It is specifically
provided that if an application for revision
has been preferred before any of the
authorities given, no further application
by the same person shall be entertained,
meaning thereby that once first revision
was preferred by the petitioner which was
dismissed as withdrawn without seeking
any liberty to file revision again, the
second revision was not maintainable.
Even in the application for withdrawal the
petitioner had not disclosed that he has
preferred another revision before the
Board of Revenue and do not want to
pursue this revision. The application for
withdrawal was filed simply on the
ground that petitioner does not want to
pursue the revision and it may be
dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner
had not sought any liberty to file fresh
revision, the first revision was, as such,
dismissed as withdrawn without providing
any liberty to file another revision. It is
immaterial whether the second revision
preferred by the petitioner had come up
for admission on 21.2.2015 i.e., at the
time when the first revision was already
dismissed as withdrawn. Since no liberty
was sought or given while withdrawing
the first revision, as such, I am of the
considered opinion that the second
revision preferred by the petitioner was
not maintainable. The larger Bench of the
Board of Revenue by the impugned
judgment and order has rightly come to
conclusion that the second revision by the
petitioner before Board of Revenue was
not maintainable. The larger Bench was
830
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also right in dismissing the revision
preferred by the petitioner as there was no
question of remanding or sending the
matter back to the authority who had
made the reference to the larger Bench,
once the larger Bench of the Board of
Revenue had come to conclusion that the
second revision was not maintainable.
15. In view of above, the writ
petition
fails
and
is
accordingly
dismissed.
16. However, it is made clear that
the petitioner would be at liberty to avail
any legal remedy available to her in law.
In case any such recourse is adopted, the
matter may be considered and decided
without
being
influenced
by
any
observations made by this Court.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Writ-A No. 4436 of 2009
Awadh Bihari Shukla
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.P.N. Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Pension
benefits-petitioner working as collection
peon-working
continuously
w.e.f.
01.06.1970
retired
31.07.02-claim
of
pension denied-on ground of seasonal
working and not in temporary capacityfrom original service record a work
'temporary' struck down and substituted
by seasonal (Samayik)-held-keeping in
view of Parsidh Narayan and Dhooma Ram
case, as well working in particular pay
scale with other benefits- as regular
employee-as per G.O. 01.07.89 entitled for
pension-necessary direction issued.
Held: Para-23
After careful consideration of the matter,
I am of the view that for the reasons
stated herein-above, the impugned order
of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated
12.12.2008 is unsustainable and it needs
to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set
aside.
Case Law discussed:
2006 (1) ESC 611; 1989 ACJ 337; W.P. No.
26668 of 2002; W.P. No. 56632 of 2005;
Special Appeal No. 743 of 2005; W.P. No.
4211 of 2008; Special Appeal No. 508 of 2008;
Writ-A No. 42138 of 2007
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)
1. The petitioner is a retired
Collection Peon. He is presently 73 years
old. He has preferred this writ petition
seeking writ of certiorari for quashing of
the impugned order dated 12.12.2008
passed by fourth respondent i.e. UpZiladhikari, Tehsil Sikanderpur, District
Ballia, whereby the claim of the petitioner
for the post retiral benefit including
pension has been rejected on the ground
that he was a Seasonal Collection Peon
and not a Collection Peon (Temporary).
2.
The petitioner claims that he was
initially appointed on 01.06.1970 as a
Collection Peon in District Ballia. He worked
till the year 1981 with some artificial breaks.
He was again appointed on 20.03.1982 as a
Collection Peon (Temporary) on substantive
post and worked till the date of his retirement
i.e.
31
July
2002
uninterruptedly.