# Surendra Kumar Shukla v. Union of

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 824
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14285 of 2013
- **Bench:** Ran Vijay Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-kumar-shukla-v-union-of-42613
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

L.R.Act,
Section
333-
Revision-against order granting lease for
fisheries rights-held-not maintainableonly remedy to file application before the
Distt.
Magistrate-while
granting
or
refusing lease for fisheries Rights-S.D.O.
discharge administrative duty-not as
court, can not be termed as decisionrevision-held not maintainable.

Held: Para-9
Under section 333 of the Act the power
has been conferred upon the U.P. Board
of Revenue, Commisisoner, Additional
Commisioner to call for the record of any
suit or proceeding decided by any court
subordinate to him. Here in this case as I
have held that while exercising power to
approve or disapprove the proposal to
grant lease the Sub Divisional Officer
2 All] Hariom Vs. The State of U.P. and Ors.
825
does not act like a court, Therefore, the
revision cannot be directly filed against
the approval or disapproval to grant
lease or even execution of the lease.

Case Law discussed:
(ILR(Alld) 2006-0-371); (2012(10) SCC 353;
AIR 1950 SC 188; AIR 1956 SC 153; AIR 1963
SC 874; AIR 1965 SC 1595; 1969 SC 724; AIR
1999 SC 1786; AIR 2000 SC 485; AIR 2002 SC
2158; (2003) 3 SCC 563; (2011) 10; SCC 316;
JT 2012 (9) SC 166; (2004) 9 SCC 619; (2011)
11 SCC 198; Special Appeal No. 164 of 2012

(B)Practice
and
Procedure-
Order
without
jurisdiction-held
nullity
no
benefit can be claimed.

Held Para-11
In view of the foregoing discussions, I
am of the considered opinion that the
order
impugned
dated
11.12.2011
passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Administration),
Moradabad,
respondent no.2 in Revision No. 05/1213 (Shashi Pal Singh and others. Vs. Hari
Om and others) is without jurisdiction. It
is also well settled that an order without
jurisdiction is a nullity and no legal
consequences can flow such orders
reference. 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 in which it
has been held that the order without
jurisdiction is a nullity.

## Text

824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

12. This Court finds that there is
hardly any challenge worth consideration
to the findings of fact recorded by the
Tribunal qua the petitioner being not a
workman. The findings recorded by the
Tribunal are based on the evidence led by
the employers. No interference under writ
jurisdiction is called for against the said
finding of fact.

13. Counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Dr.
Surendra Kumar Shukla vs. Union of
India and others reported in 1985
UPLBEC, 789 and the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Arkal Govind
Raj Rao vs. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd.,
Bombay reported in 1986 UPLBEC, 38.

14. This Court may record that the
Labour Tribunals are Tribunals with
limited jurisdiction as per the Statute.
Their power to adjudicate the dispute is
confined by the statutory provisions.
Under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and under Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only
references in respect of workmen can be
adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.

15. Since the Tribunal, in the facts
of the case, has held that Arvind Mehrotra
did not answer the definition of workmen
within the meaning of the word under the
Industrial Disputes Act, it has rightly
come to the conclusion that reference
itself was not competent. It is settled law
that if a Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
examine the dispute, then no order of the
writ Court can confer such jurisdiction.

16. The judgments relied upon by
the petitioner are clearly distinguishable
on facts.

17. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court finds no error in the judgment of
the Tribunal. Writ petition is dismissed.

18. Interim order, if any, stands
discharged.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.13 & 21.05.13

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAY SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14285 of 2013
and
Civil Misc. Correction application no.
158910 of 2013

Hariom

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.K. Singh, Sri S.Q.Khan
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Mahesh Narain Singh
Sri Vijay Bhan Singh, Sri Shailendra Singh

(A)U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.Act,
Section
333-
Revision-against order granting lease for
fisheries rights-held-not maintainableonly remedy to file application before the
Distt.
Magistrate-while
granting
or
refusing lease for fisheries Rights-S.D.O.
discharge administrative duty-not as
court, can not be termed as decisionrevision-held not maintainable.

Held: Para-9
Under section 333 of the Act the power
has been conferred upon the U.P. Board
of Revenue, Commisisoner, Additional
Commisioner to call for the record of any
suit or proceeding decided by any court
subordinate to him. Here in this case as I
have held that while exercising power to
approve or disapprove the proposal to
grant lease the Sub Divisional Officer
2 All] Hariom Vs. The State of U.P. and Ors.
825
does not act like a court, Therefore, the
revision cannot be directly filed against
the approval or disapproval to grant
lease or even execution of the lease.

Case Law discussed:
(ILR(Alld) 2006-0-371); (2012(10) SCC 353;
AIR 1950 SC 188; AIR 1956 SC 153; AIR 1963
SC 874; AIR 1965 SC 1595; 1969 SC 724; AIR
1999 SC 1786; AIR 2000 SC 485; AIR 2002 SC
2158; (2003) 3 SCC 563; (2011) 10; SCC 316;
JT 2012 (9) SC 166; (2004) 9 SCC 619; (2011)
11 SCC 198; Special Appeal No. 164 of 2012

(B)Practice
and
Procedure-
Order
without
jurisdiction-held
nullity
no
benefit can be claimed.

Held Para-11
In view of the foregoing discussions, I
am of the considered opinion that the
order
impugned
dated
11.12.2011
passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Administration),
Moradabad,
respondent no.2 in Revision No. 05/1213 (Shashi Pal Singh and others. Vs. Hari
Om and others) is without jurisdiction. It
is also well settled that an order without
jurisdiction is a nullity and no legal
consequences can flow such orders
reference. 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 in which it
has been held that the order without
jurisdiction is a nullity.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J)

1. Heard Sri K.K.Singh, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
learned
standing
counsel
for
the
State
respondents, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned
counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 to
7 and Sri Vijai Bhan Singh, holding brief
of
Sri
M.N.Singh,
learned
counsel
appearing for the Gaon Sabha.

2. Through this writ petition the
petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ order
or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order dated 11.12.2012 passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration),
Moradabad
Division,
Moradabad, respondent no.2 in Revision
No. 05/12-13 (Shishu Pal Singh and others
vs. Hari Om and others) by which the
revision filed by the respondent nos. 5 to 7
have been allowed and the petitioner's
fishery lease dated 26.9.2012 has been
cancelled with the direction to initiate
proceedings for grant of fresh lease.

3. Sri K.K.Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner while assailing the order
impugned submitted that the order is
without jurisdiction as against the order
granting the fishery lease or lease a
revision would not be maintainable. In his
submission as the lease was granted under
the provisions of the Government Order
dated 17.10.1995 the appropriate remedy
for the respondent was to seek its
cancellation
by
way
of
filing
an
application
before
the
Collector
concerned but instead of doing so he
availed the remedy of revision. He has
drawn attention of the Court to a Full
Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Ram Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
(ILR (Alld) 2006-0-371), wherein its has
been observed that against an order
granting lease or lease appropriate remedy
is to file an application for cancellation of
lease before the Collector.

4. Sri Shailendra Singh, learned
counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 to
7 submitted that since initial allotment
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
was bad, therefore the power has been
exercised under section 333 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 and no infirmity can be
attached with this order.

5. For appreciating the controversy
in hand as to whether the revision shall be
maintainable against an order granting
lease or lease it would convenient to
peruse the language used in section 333 of
the U.P. Zaindari Abilition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the Act),
which is reproduced herein below:

"333. Power to call for cases.-(1)
The Board or the Commissioner or the
Additional Commissioner may call for the
record of any suit or proceeding [other
than proceeding under sub-section (4-A)
of Section 198) decided by any court
subordinate to him in which appeal lies or
where in appeal lies but has not been
preferred, for the purpose of satisfying
himself as to the legality or propriety of
any order passed in such suit or
proceeding and if such subordinate 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, as the case
may be, may 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, no further application by
the same person shall be entertained by
any other of them."

6. On the bare reading of section
333 of the Act it will transpire that the
power under this section can be exercised
by the Board (Board of Revenue, U.P.) or
the Commissioner or the Additional
Commissioner by calling the record of
any suit or proceeding decided by any
court subordinate to him against which no
appeal lies or appeal lies but has not been
availed with a view to satisfy himself as
to the legality or propriety of any order
passed in suit or proceeding and if such
subordinate
court
has
exercised
a
jurisdiction not vested in it by law or
failed to exercise the jurisdiction so
vested or acted in the exercise of
jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity.

7. The question would be as to
whether the Sub Divisional Officer while
approving or disapproving the proposal to
grant lease acts as a court or as an
administrative authority. What is court
has not been defined in the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act,
1950.
However,
under
the
constitutional scheme and doctrine of
separation of powers, there are three main
limbs, legislature, executive and judiciary.
The judiciary is distinct from the
executive and legislature. The judicial
function involves decision of rights and
liabilities of the parties. Enquiry and
investigation into the facts, as a matter of
fact, are the material part of the judicial
function. The court renders decision on an
application, suit, revision, appeal, writ etc.
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
contained under which the application,
suit, revision, appeal, writ etc. are filed.
There is a complete mechanism and
2 All] Hariom Vs. The State of U.P. and Ors.
827
procedure of the functioning of the court
and rendering a decision in a case which
requires version of the applicant, version
of the other side, evidence on the
pleadings of the rival parties, which may
be oral or documentary, legal submissions
etc. The Apex Court in the case of State
of
Gujarat
vs.
Gujarat
Revenue
Tribunal Bar Association ( 2012 (10)
SCC 353) has held that an authority
discharging statutory function may be
described as a quasi-judicial authority
when it possesses certain attributes or
trappings of a court, but not all. In case
certain powers under C.P.C. or Cr.P.C.
have been conferred upon an authority,
but it has not been entrusted with the
judicial powers of the State, it cannot be
held to be a court. Reference may be
given in Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. The
Employees of Bharat Bank & Anr., AIR
1950
SC
188;Virindar
Kumar
Satyawadi v. The State of Punjab, AIR
1956 SC 153;Engineering Mazdoor
Sabha & Anr. v. Hind Cycles Ltd., AIR
1963 SC 874; Associated Cement
Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma &
Anr., AIR 1965 SC 1595;Ramrao &
Anr. v. Narayan & Anr., AIR 1969 SC
724;State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
v. Raja Mahendra Pal & Anr., AIR
1999
SC
1786;
Keshab
Narayan
Banerjee v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR
2000 SC 485; Indian National Congress
(I) v. Institute of Social Welfare & Ors.,
AIR 2002 SC 2158; K. Shamrao & Ors.
v. Assistant Charity Commissioner,
(2003) 3 SCC 563;Trans Mediterranean
Airways v. Universal Exports, (2011) 10
SCC 316 at page 338;Namit Sharma v.
Union of India, JT 2012 (9) SC 166).

`
8. Here in this case under the
Government Order dated 17.10.1995
procedure has been prescribed for grant of
fishery lease and there the power has been
conferred upon the Sub Divisional Officer
either to approve or disapprove the
proposal to grant lease. It is purely an
administrative work entrusted upon the
Sub Divisional Officer and it does not
require the parties to plead their cases or
produce any evidence or it requires any
hearing before approving or disapproving
the proposal. Therefore, I am of the
considered opinion that while discharging
the
function
either
to
approve
or
disapprove the proposal to grant lease the
Sub Divisional Officer does not act as a
court.

9. Under section 333 of the Act the
power has been conferred upon the U.P.
Board
of
Revenue,
Commisisoner,
Additional Commisioner to call for the
record of any suit or proceeding decided
by any court subordinate to him. Here in
this case as I have held that while
exercising
power
to
approve
or
disapprove the proposal to grant lease the
Sub Divisional Officer does not act like a
court, Therefore, the revision cannot be
directly filed against the approval or
disapproval to grant lease or even
execution of the lease.

10. In Ram Kumar ( supra) a Full
Bench of this Court has held that an order
of the Sub Divisional Officer approving
or refusing the proposal to grant lease/
execution of lease under the relevant
Government Order although open to
judicial review under Article 226 but it is
neither appealable nor revisable under the
provisions of the Act. The remedy
available to the petitioner would be to file
an application for cancellation of lease
before the Collector as in the case of grant
of lease for agricultural purpose with
respect to the land under Sections 195 and
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
197 of the Act which power is conferred
under sub-section (4) of Section 198 of
the Act.

11. In view of the foregoing
discussions, I am of the considered
opinion that the order impugned dated
11.12.2011 passed by the Additional
Commissioner
(Administration),
Moradabad, respondent no.2 in Revision
No. 05/12-13 (Shashi Pal Singh and
others. Vs. Hari Om and others) is
without jurisdiction. It is also well settled
that an order without jurisdiction is a
nullity and no legal consequences can
flow such orders reference. Reference
may be made to the decisons 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 in which it has been
held that the order without jurisdiction is
a nullity.

12. In view of the foregoing
discussions the impugned order dated
11.12.2012 passed by the Additional
Commissioner
(Administration)
Moradabad Division, Moradabad cannot
be sustained and it is, hereby, quashed.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
However, allowing the writ petition and
setting aside the order passed by the
Additional
Commissioner
will
not
preclude the respondents to avail the
remedy
to
file
an
application
for
cancellation of lease in accordance with
law. In case such an application is filed
that be considered and decided in
accordance with law on its own merit
expeditiously.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15504 of 2011

Mohammad Ikram and Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr..

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K.S. Bais

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vivek Singh

Workman Compensation Act.- Section 23
readwith Rule 41 of the Rule-Power of
Review
whether
can
Commissioner
workmen
compensation
review
its
earlier order-held-'No' unless allegation
of
fraud
or
misrepresentation-orderquashed.

Held: Para-11
A plea of misappreciation of evidence
was raised. No plea of fraud was alleged
by
the
owners.
The
Court
is
consequently, of the view that in the
absence of a plea of fraud being raised, it
was not possible for the Commissioner to
reappreciate the entire arguments or
reconsider the matter de novo or review
its own judgment.

Case Law discussed:
2009(120)FLR; AIR 2000 SC 1165

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Two sons of the petitioner died
during the course of employment on 20th