Rakesh Kumar Mehra vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and

This petition has been filed in certain peculiar circumstances questioning the proceedings before the Board of Revenue in a matter arising out of summary proceedings u/s 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The dispute as raised relates to an ex-parte order passed under the aforesaid provisions whereby the name of the Petitioner and his brother were sought to be expunged from the revenue records, that was founded on the basis of an alleged lease deed executed in favour of their grand-father. The Petitioner aggrieved by the expunging of his name went up in revision, which was allowed. The State of U.P. challenged the said order of the revising authority by filing revisions before the Board of Revenue that were dismissed and the order passed by the Commissioner in revisions was affirmed.

The Nagar Palika Parishad, Mainpuri during the pendency of the said revisions moved an application for impleadment before the Board of Revenue that was rejected, which order was never put to challenge.

After the revisions came to be dismissed, the Nagar Palika Parishad filed Writ Petition No. 59442 of 2010 challenging the order of the Board of Revenue. The said writ petition after hearing the learned Counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad dismissed the same on 30th September, 2010 on the ground that the Nagar Palika Parishad was only in the capacity of managing the land entrusted in its area by the State Government and since the State Government has not taken up the matter further, the Nagar Palika Parishad has no locus to contest the matter. This judgment is on record as annexure 9 to the writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel in spite of having been served with a notice, has not filed any counter affidavit till date. The fact that the State has not contested the matter further, therefore, remains undisputed.

It is in these circumstances that a review application came to be filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad before the Board of Revenue in spite of the fact that the very same order was under challenge in Writ Petition No. 59442 of 2010. The said review application was entertained and an interim order was passed by the Board of Revenue which has given rise to these proceedings.

This petition was entertained and notices were issued and a detailed interim order was passed on 1st February, 2011 by this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition an amendment application was filed bringing to the notice of the Court that the Chairman, Board of Revenue on the asking of the Revenue Minister proceeded to direct the District Magistrate, Mainpuri not to proceed to grant any free hold rights to the Petitioner in respect of the land in dispute. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the entire proceedings of review before the Board of Revenue was without jurisdiction and the consequential action taken by the Chairman, Board of Revenue suo motu in the aforesaid background, is also an encroachment upon the declaration of the rights of the Petitioner. In essence, the contention is that the Respondents are trying to circumvent the judgment of this Court dated 30.09.2010.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad, it appears that the review application was filed before the Board of Revenue after the dismissal of the writ petition. It is this, which is being objected to by the Petitioner and further the consequential orders that have been passed on the administrative side, which are telling upon the rights of the Petitioner. This Court after noticing these facts passed the interim order on 01.02.2011 staying the operation of the orders including the order passed by the Board of Revenue, but at the same time left it open to the Petitioner to raise an objection regarding the maintainability of the review application and the Board was called upon to proceed to decide the objection as a preliminary objection expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.

In the opinion of the Court, the said part of the order dated 1st February, 2011, therefore, deserves to be made absolute so that the matter be disposed of by the Board of Revenue before proceeding to create any further complication in the matter accordingly.

The writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the Board of Revenue to proceed to entertain the objection of the Petitioner as a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the review application filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad and decide the same as directed by this Court, vide order dated 1st February, 2011, if not already decided, within a period of three months from today.

The other consequences shall follow after the matter is decided finally by the Board of Revenue as directed hereinabove.