# Vidyawati v. Board of Revenue & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 88
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-15
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 34788 of 2005
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vidyawati-v-board-of-revenue-ors-47873
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri M.S. Pandey, Sri V.K. Singh, Sri
Azad Rai

Gaon Sabha Manual, Para Nos. 128 & 131
- Provisions of para Nos.128 and 131 of
Gaon Sabha Manual are mandatory in
nature - Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti is
bound by the statutory duty to conduct
and prosecute legal proceedings by or on
behalf of Gram Panchayat - Ex-pradhan
not empowered to file second appeal
before Board of Revenue - The petitioner
filed suit under Section 229-B/122-B (4F)
of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act - suit was dismissed
by the trial court, in appeal suit was
decreed - the second appellate court
without condoning the delay in filing the
10 All. Vidyawati Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
89
second appeal as well as without setting
aside the finding of fact recorded by the
first appellate court allowed the second
appeal and set aside the judgment and
decree of the fist appellate Court - Held -
As delay was not condoned in filing the
second appeal and Second Appeal was
entertained on behalf of the Ex-pradhan
who was not empowered to file second
appeal before Board of Revenue in view of
the provisions contained in para Nos.128
and 131 of Gaon Sabha Manual the
impugned judgments and orders dated
Second Appellate Court set aside (Para
12)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Jagdish Pandey (dead) through Lrs Vs Additional
Collector (City) Gorakhpur & ors. reported in
2011 (114) RD 106

## Text

88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner to answer either of these
questions
in
paragraph
12
in
the
affirmative. As has been noted, the
impugned order does not rest on the
allegation that the petitioner was arrested,
detained or fined in connection with the
criminal case. The case of the petitioner
would,
therefore,
squarely
fall
for
consideration in light of the principles
elucidated in paragraph 30(10) of Avtar
Singh (supra). While it cannot be therefore
said that the petitioners had suppressed
material information, it is still open to the
respondents to adjudge his suitability for
appointment in the force since knowledge
of the criminal case has come to light,
albeit during the course of verification. On
an overall consideration of the aforesaid
aspects, it is manifest that the impugned
order cannot be sustained.

19. From perusal of the record, this
Court is of the opinion that in similar
circumstances, where the fact regarding filing
of F.I.R. was not disclosed by the applicants,
orders were passed by the respondents for
reinstatement of them stating that there is no
cloumn in the Attestation Form regarding
declaration of only F.I.R. and as such there is
no suppression of material facts, therefore, it
is wrong to say that any fact whatsoever has
been suppressed by the applicant.

20. In the facts and circumstance of the
case as stated above, this Court is of the
opinion that the petitioner has not concealed
any material information while filling up his
attestation form deliberately or any wilful
intention to suppress the material facts.

21. Similar view was also taken by this
Court in Writ A No.33265 of 2017
(Kalamuddin Ansari And Another Vs.
Union Of India and others) decided on
31.10.2018.

22. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the discharge order dated
15.03.2017 passed by the respondent is
hereby set aside.

23. The matter stands remitted to the
respondents for deciding the claims of the
petitioner afresh and in light of the
observations
made
hereinabove.
The
aforesaid exercise be completed within a
period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 88
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 34788 of 2005

Vidyawati ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Achal Singh Vats, Sri H.N. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri M.S. Pandey, Sri V.K. Singh, Sri
Azad Rai

Gaon Sabha Manual, Para Nos. 128 & 131
- Provisions of para Nos.128 and 131 of
Gaon Sabha Manual are mandatory in
nature - Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti is
bound by the statutory duty to conduct
and prosecute legal proceedings by or on
behalf of Gram Panchayat - Ex-pradhan
not empowered to file second appeal
before Board of Revenue - The petitioner
filed suit under Section 229-B/122-B (4F)
of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act - suit was dismissed
by the trial court, in appeal suit was
decreed - the second appellate court
without condoning the delay in filing the
10 All. Vidyawati Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
89
second appeal as well as without setting
aside the finding of fact recorded by the
first appellate court allowed the second
appeal and set aside the judgment and
decree of the fist appellate Court - Held -
As delay was not condoned in filing the
second appeal and Second Appeal was
entertained on behalf of the Ex-pradhan
who was not empowered to file second
appeal before Board of Revenue in view of
the provisions contained in para Nos.128
and 131 of Gaon Sabha Manual the
impugned judgments and orders dated
Second Appellate Court set aside (Para
12)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Jagdish Pandey (dead) through Lrs Vs Additional
Collector (City) Gorakhpur & ors. reported in
2011 (114) RD 106

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Achal Singh Vats,
learned counsel for the petitioner, leaned
Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and
2 and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for
respondent No.3.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed for quashing the judgment and order
dated 15.04.2005 and 30.03.2005 passed by
respondent No.1 i.e. Board of Revenue,
U.P. Allahabad and order dated 30.01.2001
passed by Up Ziladhikari, Phoolpur,
Allahabad.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner belongs to scheduled caste
community, her father was in possession of
plot No.78 area 0.401 hectares and plot
No.79-Ka area 0.009 hectare situated in
village Bagautipur @ Khuthana, Pargana
and
Tehsil-Soraon,
District-Allahabad.
Petitioner's father died leaving behind his
widow Smt. Sundari Devi as his legal heir
and after death of Sundari Devi, land in
dispute duly devolved upon the petitioner
being her daughter. Smt. Sundari Devi had
also executed a registered will in favour of
the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner is
continuing in actual possession of land in
dispute. Petitioner filed a Suit under
Section
229-B/122-B
(4F)
of
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act impleading the Gram
Panchayat and State of U.P. as defendants.
The trial court vide judgment and decree
dated 30.01.2001 dismissed the plaintiffsuit, hence the petitioner filed an Appeal
before Commissioner, the same was heard
by
Additional
Commissioner
(2nd)
Allahabad and appeal was allowed by
Judgment and decree dated 22.04.2003
recording the finding of fact that appellant
is in possession of the disputed plot since
long and belongs to scheduled caste
community as such appellant is entitled to
benefit of Section 122 B (4F) of U.P.Z.A.
& L. R. Act. Against the judgment and the
decree of the first appellate Court Gaon
Sabha through Ex-pradhan (Chandra Kala
Devi) filed a Second Appeal, which has
been allowed without condoning the delay
in filing the second appeal as well as
without framing the substantial question of
law. Against the judgment and decree of
second appellate court, petitioner filed a
Review
Application,
the
Review
Application was also rejected vide order
dated 15.05.2005, hence this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that suit under Section 229B/122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act filed
by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial
court vide order dated 30.01.2001, against
the same an Appeal was filed by the
petitioner which was allowed and suit was
decreed by the Additional Commissioner
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2003
recording finding of fact that petitioner is in
possession over the disputed plot before the
relevant date and being member of
Scheduled Caste community, petitioner is
entitled to the benefit of Sectio122-B (4F)
of U.P.Z.A.&L.R.Act. He further submitted
that against the first appellate court
judgment, the Second Appeal was filed on
behalf of Gaon Sabha through Ex Pradhan
who was not empowered to file the Second
Appeal and the Second Appeal was
allowed without framing the substantial
questions of law, even finding of fact
record by the first appellate Court was not
set aside and second appeal has been
outrightly
allowed.
Counsel
for
the
petitioner placed reliance upon paragraph
Nos.128 and 131 of Gaon Sabha Manual
which are as follows:

"128.The
conduit
of
Gaon
Sabha Litigation shall not depend upon
the individual discretion of the Chairman
of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land
Management Committee) but shall be a
matter of a resolution of the Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management
Committee) as a whole. In urgent cases,
however, the Chairman can take action on
his ow and seek ratification of the Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management
Committee ) afterwards by including in
the agenda of the next ensuing meeting.

131.
Lawyers
have
been
appointed who shall represent the Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management
Committee) and give it legal advice where
necessary. the Committee shall not engage
any lawyer other than the penal lawyer
appointed. In important cases, however
special lawyers can be engaged with the
specific provisions of the Collector in
writing.

There is a Vakil or mukhtar in
each tehsil and one civil and one revenue
lawyer at the district headquarters. the
District Government Counsel in in charge
of the whole work.

The Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti
(Land Management Committee) requiring
the advice of a lawyer should request the
Tahsildar or the Sub-divisional Officer to
arrange for it.

The
Chairman
of
Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management
Committee)shall consult the penal lawyer
in all cases in which he is summoned or is
impleaded as defendant.

If in any case the Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management
Committee) refuse to sign a plaint or to
defend a case, as advised by the panel
lawyer or the special lawyer, if engaged,
as the case may be, or as instructed by the
Tahsildar or the sub-divisional Officer,
the lekhpal as Secretary of the Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management
Committee) shall act for the Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management
Committee) under orders of the Tahsildar
for the above purpose only."

5. Counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance upon the Judgment of this Hon'ble
Court on the point of para Nos. 128 and
131 of Gaon Sabha Manual in Case of
Jagdish Pandey (dead) through Lrs Vs.
Additional Collector (City) Gorakhpur
and others reported in 2011 (114) RD
106 in which it is held that provisions of
para Nos.128 and 131 of Gaon Sabha
Manual are mandatory in nature.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that second appeal was barred
by limitation also but delay was not condoned
and second appeal has been allowed.
10 All. Vidyawati Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
91

7. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the Gaon Sabha-Mr. Azad Rai,
submitted that suit filed by the plaintiff was
dismissed as property belonged to the gaon
sabha and the second appeal was also
rightly allowed as there is no requirement
for framing substantial question of law by
Board of Revenue under Section 331 (4) of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, although they could
not explained how second appeal was filed
before the Board of Revenue, through Ex
pradhan and how second appeal was
allowed without setting aside the finding of
facts.

8. I have considered the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties .

9. There is not dispute about the fact
that petitioner filed suit under Section 229B/122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and
the suit was dismissed by the trial court but
in appeal suit was decreed and finding of
fact
has
been
recorded
that
plaintiff/petitioner
being
member
of
scheduled
caste
community
was
in
possession of the plot in dispute (Plot
Nos.78 area 0.401 hectares and 79Ka area
0.009 hectare) since before the relevant
date, the second appellate court without
condoning the delay in filing the second
appeal as well as without setting aside the
finding of fact recorded by the first
appellate court has arbitrarily allowed the
second appeal and set aside the judgment
and decree of the fist appellate Court.

10. Perusal of the order passed by the
second appellate court fully demonstrate
that there is no finding with respect of the
fact that petitioner is not in a possession of
the disputed plot, there is no order for
condonation of delay and even the Second
Appeal has been filed at the instance of Expradhan who had no authority to file
second appeal before Board of Revenue in
view of provisions contained in para 131 of
Gaon Sabha Manual, which are mandatory
in nature as held in Jagdish pandey
(supra) in para No.12 and 13 which are as
follows:

"12. In the instant case, it is
admitted on record that the Gram
Pradhan had refused to sign the memo of
revision. On the contrary, the respondent
no.4, Komal in his individual capacity
signed the same. The respondent no.4 had
no authority to do so and be a substitute of
the Lekhpal, who is enjoined with this
duty. Under the provisions of paragraph131, the District Government Counsel
ought to have called upon the Tehsildar to
send
the
Lekhpal
for
appropriate
signatures in order to file a memo of
revision and that having not been done,
the District Government Counsel failed to
apply the provisions of paragraph-131. He
could not have made Sri Komal a
substitute in place of the Lekhpal of the
village.

13. The provisions of Para 131
appear to be binding and peremptory in
nature. The procedure therein cannot be
bypassed or else it would lead to a chaos.
If any person or villager is allowed to sign
documents the same would be not only
inappropriate but also illegal as such a
person will have no authority to represent
a Gaon Sabha. The said provision cannot
be wished off merely as directory in view
of he language employed therein."

11. He further submitted that second
appeal has been arbitrarily allowed by the
cryptic judgment.

12. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, specially that
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
delay was not condoned in filing the second
appeal and Second Appeal was entertained
on behalf of the Ex-pradhan who was not
empowered to file second appeal in view of
the provisions contained in para Nos.128
and 131 of Gaon Sabha Manual as laid
down in Jagdish Pandey (Supra), the
impugned judgments and orders dated
15.04.2005 and 31.03.2005 passed by the
respondent No.1 (Second Appellate Court)
are hereby set aside and the judgment
passed by the first appellate court dated
22.11.2003 is hereby maintained. The Writ
petition stands allowed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 92
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 6620 of 2021

Bharti Airtel Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manju Lata Mishra, Ashish Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 - Sections 67, 73 & 129 - Section
129 provides for Detention, seizure and
release of goods and conveyances in
transit - When goods are detained, they
can be released upon the payment of the
amount specified in clauses (a), (b), and
(c) of Section 129(1) of the Act by the
owner of the goods or any other person
coming forward to pay - but where the
owner of the goods or the person does not
volunteer to pay the penalty as prescribed
under clause (a), (b), (c) of Section 129
(1) of the Act in such case the department
is will equipped to initiate proceedings by
taking recourse to Section 73, 74, 75 of
the
Act
read
with
section
122
for
determination of tax and the penalty
leviable - however there is no provision
u/s 129 for determination of tax due,
which can be done only by taking recourse
to the provisions of Section 73 or 74 of the
CGST Act, as the case may be - In the
present case, the department proceeded
to determine the tax liability as well as
penalty under the provisions of Section
129 of the Act, which is not contemplated
or intended - Impugned Orders quashed
and set aside & it was directed that the
amount paid by the petitioner for release
of the goods shall be refunded to the
petitioner (Para 27, 28)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd.Vs St. of U.P & ors.
reported in 2018 (67) NTN-DX 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Supplementary Affidavit filed by
the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Ashish Mishra, the
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel, who appears for the
respondents.

3. The present petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 17.10.2018
purportedly to be passed in exercise of the
power under Section 129 of the CGST Act
as well as the order dated 31.10.2020
passed by the respondent no.4 whereby the
appeal preferred by the petitioner has been
dismissed.

4. The counsel for the petitioner states
that as the Tribunal contemplated under the