Triveni Rai (Dead) & Anr. vs Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.

Vikram Nath, J.—Case has been taken up in revised call. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is present. No one is present on behalf of the private respondent No. 4 although name of Sri R.N. Rai, Advocate from the side of the said respondent has been printed in the cause list.

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.

This petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Board of Revenue dated 12121984 whereby the Board of Revenue did not accept the recommendation made by the Additional Commissioner anti accordingly dismissed the revision.

Allotment of Sirdari rights with regard to Plot No. 405 was made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1975. Two applications, one by Jagardeo and the other by Sheodas Ram were filed before the Collector, Ghazipur for cancellation of said allotment under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The Collector recorded evidence in both the cases separately however, while deciding passed a common judgment dated 17111977 holding that the allotment had not been made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the rules framed under the Act and accordingly cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners filed two revisions before the Commissioner. Apart from other grounds taken in the revisions regarding the correctness of the order of the Collector, one of the grounds taken was that the Land Management Committee had not been made a party in one of the cancellation proceedings. The Additional Commissioner vide the order dated 2331978 did not consider the other points raised in the revisions but only on the question whether Land Management Committee was a necessary party or not, made recommendation that as the Land Management Committee was not made a party in one of the cases even though it was a necessary party and, therefore, the matter ought to be remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision after impleading the Land Management Committee and affording it opportunity. The Board of Revenue disagreed with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner and was of the view that as the Land Management Committee was already a party in the other connected matter and had been given due opportunity, therefore, it was not necessary to remand the matter again and it accordingly affirmed the order of the Collector cancelling the lease.

The submission before this Court is that in the event the Board of Revenue was disagreeing with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner then two courses were open to it, either it should have remanded the matter to the Additional Commissioner for recording his findings on the other questions relating to the merits of the matter or the Board of Revenue itself ought to have recorded its findings with regard to the validity of the allotment.

From the perusal of the judgment of the Board of Revenue I do not find that the Board of Revenue has recorded any such findings. In the absence of any such findings the order of the Collector on its merits has not been tested by the Additional Commissioner or the Board of Revenue. The question as to whether the allotment had been made strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the rules framed under the Act is yet to be examined by the Board of Revenue. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be allowed.

In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 12121984 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue for a fresh decision on the revisions filed by the petitioners relating to the validity of the allotment. The question with regard to the Land Management Committee being necessary party does not require any further consideration as this Court is of the view that the Land Management Committee was duly represented in the other set of proceedings before the Collector and had due opportunity to contest the cancellation proceedings.

Since the matter is quite old, it is expected that the Board of Revenue will decide the revision afresh within a period of six months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order.