Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4095 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bholiya Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,Shiv Babu Dubey
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
In this petition the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, the first respondent, dated 29th January, 2018 and by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), the second respondent, dated 13th October, 2016.
The suit filed by the petitioner under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (for short, the "Act") was exparte decreed on 28th February, 2013. Aggrieved by the said order the contesting respondent nos. 3 to 5 filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) under Section 331(3) of the Act, which has been allowed by the appellate Court vide order dated 13th October, 2016 and the exparte decree dated 28th February, 2013 was set aside. The appellate Court has also directed the Court below that the suit be finalized in three dates and cost of Rs.500/- has also been imposed upon the contesting respondents.
Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate Court, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. While dismissing the revision by the impugned order dated 29th January, 2018, the Board of Revenue has taken note of the fact that in fact, only two dates were fixed on 30th August, 2012 and 26th September, 2012. On those dates the contesting respondents were not present. However, in respect of other dates viz. 22nd October, 2012, 30th November, 2012, 13th December, 2012, 02nd January, 2013, 23rd November, 2013 and 18th January, 2013 it is recorded that these were general dates when the lawyers were on strike, hence on those dates it cannot be said that the respondents were negligent in attending the Court. The revisional Court has dismissed the revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assistant Collector, the revenue court, had passed the order on merit and in the order it is mentioned that counsel for the contesting respondents were heard, hence it cannot be said that the order was exparte.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shiv Babu Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5, and learned Standing Counsel.
The order dated 28th February, 2013 itself indicates that the revenue court has only noticed the facts of the case and only in one paragraph has recorded the finding.
Be that as it may, the appellate Court as well as the revisional Court both have found that the order of the revenue court was exparte, hence the said order has been set aside. Under Article 226 of the Constitution I am of the view that no interference is called for. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramji Dass and others v. Mohan Singh, 1978 A.R.C. 496, has held that the Court should always prefer in favour of hearing in case the matter was decided exparte. The same principle has been propounded by the Supreme Court in a large number of cases.
Having due regard to the fact of this case that an exparte order has been set aside, I do not find any error in the order of the appellate and revisional courts, hence no interference is called for. However, the revenue court is directed to conclude the hearing of the case as directed by the appellate court. While granting adjournments the Court shall pay regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd. and others, (2011) 9 SCC 678, wherein it has been held that a party is not entitled for more than three adjournments. In the interest of justice, the cost of Rs.500/- is enhanced to Rs.2500/-. The cost shall be paid by the opposite parties.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 SKT/-