JUDGMENT B. Dikshit, J.
1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged an order passed by Board of Revenue whereby it held that revision against an order allowing restoration is not maintainable.
2. The relevant facts are that petitioners Kaley Khan and Sher Ali moved for mutation on the basis of a will. The Tehsildar allowed mutation. An application for restoration was moved by Muzammil Khan, husband of opposite party Smt. Illiyasi and father of opposite party Km. Tamanna, which was rejected by Tehsildar Mawana, district Meerut and case was restored. A revision under Section 218 of U. P. Land Revenue Act was preferred by Kaley Khan and Sher Ali against order passed in appeal. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Division, on being satisfied, recommended to Board of Revenue, U. P., Lucknow, for allowing revision and setting aside of order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Mawana but the Board of Revenue, U. P., Lucknow, rejected the reference on the ground that no revision is maintainable against an order allowing restoration. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition in cases arising out of proceedings under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act. The question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether a revision under Section 218 of U. P. Land Revenue Act is maintainable against an order allowing restoration application?
3. The revision against an order passed in appeal was filed under Section 218 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, which reads as follows :
"218. Reference to the Board.--The Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner, the Collector, the Record Officer or the Settlement Officer may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any officer subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings, and, if he is of opinion that the proceeding taken or order passed by such subordinate officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board and the Board shall thereupon pass such orders as it thinks at."
4. It is apparent from bare reading of Section 218 that the Additional Commissioner can make a reference to Board of Revenue after being satisfied in respect of legality or propriety of an order passed by a subordinate officer in a case or proceedings and if he is of the opinion that such finding recorded by subordinate officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed. In case such a reference is made, then the Board of Revenue has power to pass such an order as it deems fit.
5. So far present case is concerned, the petitioners approached Commissioner by filing revision. The Additional Commissioner considered it to be a fit case for cancelling the order passed in appeal and made the reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 218. Despite the fact that the language of Section 218 is absolutely clear and unambiguous, yet the Board of Revenue has held no revision lay against order allowing restoration application. It misconstrued Section 218 in doing so. A revision is maintainable against such an order and petitioners feeling aggrieved from order passed in appeal rightly approached Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner did not act beyond the scope of its power in entertaining revision. Thus, it is held that reference made by Additional Commissioner under Section 218 is maintainable.
6. The order of Board of Revenue in this case is bad for another reason. The Board of Revenue has not recorded its reasons for coming to conclusion that no revision lies against the order whereby restoration application stood allowed in appeal.
7. For aforesaid reasons, the order passed by Board of Revenue is quashed. The Board of Revenue. U. P., Lucknow, is directed to register the reference afresh to its original number and dispose of the same on merits. The writ petition is allowed.