Kanhaiya Lal Gupta vs Board of Revenue and Others

Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur in revision No. 165/M-2012 (Abdullah v. Kanhaiya Lal Gupta) and order dated 8.11.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow in Revision No. 81/LR/2013-14 (Kanhaiya Lal Gupta v. Abdullaha). Vide order dated 7.3.2013, the revision filed by respondent No. 4 against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2012 passed by Naib Tehsildar has been allowed. Challenging the aforesaid order, the other side has filed Revision No. 165/M-2012 which was allowed. Challenging this order, the petitioner has preferred Writ C No. 19814 of 2013 (Kanhaiya Lal Gupta v. Abdullaha). This writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of filing revision.

It appears, thereafter, the revision was filed before the Board of Revenue at Lucknow, which was numbered as Revision No. 81/LR/2013-14 (Kanhaiya Lal Gupta v. Abdullaha). This revision was dismissed by the Board of Revenue with the following order:

It would further transpire that the Counsel for the revisionist has moved an application for deleting the consent part as he has never consented to pass such order. The said application appears to be pending before learned Member, Board of Revenue as learned Counsel for the petitioner states that no order has yet been passed on that application.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that it is merely an application on behalf of the Counsel and he is aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner as his grievance has still been unredressed for which he has earlier approached this Court and thereafter, before Board of Revenue. In his submission, the consent has wrongly been given by the Counsel for dismissing the revision.

Be that as it may, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to interfere with this matter at this stage. The petitioner, if so advised, may file an appropriate application before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow.

In case such an application is filed within the four corners of law before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, who has decided the revision, alongwith certified copy of the order of this Court, the same may be considered and decided in accordance with law by passing a reasoned speaking order. With the aforesaid observation direction, this writ petition is disposed of.