- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Dev v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute concerns plot No. 156 measuring 4 Bigha 16 Biswas, referred to as 'the plot in dispute'. The petitioner and his brother purchased the plot from Baldev, respondent No. 5 and the owner/Bhumidhar, through a registered sale deed dated 20.11.1996. Prior to this, the plot was put to public auction and sold in favour of respondent No. 5, with the auction sale confirmed on 23.11.1991. The petitioner challenged the validity of the auction order by filing an appeal, which was dismissed on 11.9.2000 by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 333 of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the Commissioner’s order dated 11.9.2000. The revision was admitted by respondent No. 2 (Board of Revenue, U.P, Allahabad) and registered as Revision No. 5/2000-2001 by order dated 7.12.2000, with interim relief granted to the petitioner. On 21.3.2001, respondent No. 2 recalled the order dated 7.12.2000 and directed the Registrar to transmit the case record to Lucknow for disposal. The present petition seeks to quash the order dated 21.3.2001 and compel respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner’s representation on merits.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Board of Revenue, U.P at Allahabad had jurisdiction to admit the revision and grant interim relief under the U.P Land Revenue Act.
- Whether the order recalling the admission of the revision and transferring the case to Lucknow was valid.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the revision decided at Allahabad or if it must be decided at Lucknow as per territorial jurisdiction rules under the U.P Land Revenue Act.
- Whether the writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 21.3.2001 is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents' Arguments
- The revision under the U.P Land Revenue Act could not be filed at Allahabad as the Board of Revenue at Allahabad lacked jurisdiction.
- The order admitting the revision and granting interim relief by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad, was without jurisdiction.
- All revisions and appeals under the U.P Land Revenue Act are to be filed and decided by the Board of Revenue at Lucknow due to territorial distribution of jurisdiction under Section 7 of the U.P Land Revenue Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the petitioner’s arguments beyond the petition seeking quashing of the order dated 21.3.2001 and direction to decide representation on merits.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the territorial jurisdiction provisions under Section 7 of the U.P Land Revenue Act, which empowers the Board of Revenue to distribute its business and territorial jurisdiction among its members. The court noted the common practice that appeals and revisions under the U.P Land Revenue Act are filed and decided at the Board of Revenue, Lucknow. The order admitting the revision and granting interim relief by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad was held to be without jurisdiction and was correctly recalled. The court observed that the revision is still pending and that the petitioner has not suffered any material loss by the transfer of the case to Lucknow. Accordingly, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision is the dismissal of the writ petition.
The direct effect of this decision is that the revision filed by the petitioner will be decided by the Board of Revenue at Lucknow, in accordance with the territorial jurisdiction rules under the U.P Land Revenue Act. The petitioner will not suffer any prejudice by this transfer. The opinion does not establish any new precedent or broader legal implications beyond the specific jurisdictional issue between the parties.
R.H Zaidi, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Standing Counsel.
2. The dispute relates to the plot No. 156 measuring 4 Bigha 16 Biswas, hereinafter referred to as ‘the plot in dispute’. The petitioner and his brother purchased the plot in dispute from Baldev, the respondent No. 5, who was the owner/Bhumidhar of the said plot, through a registered sale deed dated 20.11.1996 The said plot was subsequently put to public auction and was sold in favour of respondent No. 5. The auction sale was confirmed on 23.11.1991 Challenging the validity of the said order, petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 11.9.2000 by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad.
3. The petitioner, thereafter filed a revision under Section 333 of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the order of Commissioner dated 11.9.2000 The revision filed by the petitioner was admitted by the respondent No. 2 and was registered as Revision No. 5/2000-2001 by order dated 7.12.2000 The petitioner also applied for grant of interim relief, which was granted by the respondent No. 2. In the case, thereafter, several dates were fixed. It was on 21.3.2001 that respondent No. 2, the Board of Revenue, U.P, Allahabad passed the order recalling the order dated 7.12.2000 and the Registrar was also directed to transmit the record of the case to Lucknow immediately. Hence, the present petition mainly for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 21.3.2001 passed by respondent No. 2 and commanding the said respondent to decide the representation filed by the petitioner on merits.
4. Before the respondent No. 2, the respondents filed an application for recalling the order dated 7.12.2000 passed in Revision No. 5/2000-2001. It was urged before the court below that revision under the U.P Land Revenue Act could not be filed at Allahabad and that order passed by the Board of Revenue at Allahabad admitting the revision and granting the interim order was wholly without jurisdiction. The respondent No. 2 upheld the objection and the Registrar of the Board of Revenue was directed to transmit the file to Lucknow immediately for disposal in accordance with law. The said order is quoted below:—
“In this case the learned counsel for the opposite parties has moved an application for recalling the order dated 7.12.2000 passed in Revision No. 5 of 2000-2001 (Ramdeo v. State of U.P). Since the jurisdiction of cases under Rule 285-I of the U.P.Z.A and L.R Rules does not lie in the Board of Revenue, U.P, Allahabad, therefore, the order dated 7.12.2000 is recalled.
Registrar, Board of Revenue, is directed to send the file to Lucknow, Board of Revenue, immediately for disposal according to law.”
5. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that the revision is still pending and the interim order has not been vacated specifically. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner did not suffer any material loss if the revision is decided at Lucknow. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 stated that all revisions and appeals under the U.P Land Revenue Act are to be filed and decided by the Board of Revenue, U.P at Lucknow as there was a territorial distribution of work as provided under Section 7 of the U.P Land Revenue Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act provides as under:—
“7. Power to distribute business.— (1) Subject to such rules or orders as the State Government may prescribe or issue, the Board may distribute its business and make such territorial division of its jurisdiction amongst its members as the Board may deem fit.”
6. It is also a matter of common knowledge that appeals and revisions arising out of the U.P Land Revenue Act are filed and decided by the Board of Revenue, U.P at Lucknow. Further, in my opinion, petitioner shall not suffer any loss if the case is decided at Lucknow inasmuch the revision shall be decided after hearing learned counsel for the parties on merits. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
7. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. Petition Dismissed.
Alert