Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3676 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shyam Lal Respondent :- Sri Hari Shanker Upadhyay And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Murli Dhar Mishra,Pallavi Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tariq Maqbool Khan
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset seeks leave of the Court to delete respondent no. 1 from the array of parties.
Leave is granted. Necessary amendment in the memo of parties be carried out during the course of the day.
The petitioner is a complainant. On his complaint the lease granted by Gaon Sabha in favour of respondent no. 2 was cancelled on 21.12.2017. A copy of the said order is on the record as annexure-9 to the writ petition.
It is stated that Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha has also filed an application under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 which has been registered as Case no. 2016054700501 of 2016 and the said application was allowed on the same date i.e. 21.12.2017. Smt. Gujrati along with 17 others preferred Revision No. 020170500002182/2017 against the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Collector before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur. A copy of the memo of revision is on the record as annexure-11 to the writ petition.
It is stated that the Commissioner, Gorakhpur has admitted the revision and has posted the matter on 30.4.2018 to consider the said application. Learned Commissioner has summoned the record from the lower court by requisition order dated 19.3.2018. Thereafter a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4803 of 2018 was filed by Gujrati.
In paragraph-18 of the instant writ petition an averment has been made that the aforesaid writ petition, in fact, has been filed by an impostor. Smt. Anita who had earlier preferred a revision before the Commissioner thereafter filed Revision No. 479 of 2018 before the Board of Revenue, Allahabad.
The petitioner has filed a caveat in the said matter and after hearing both the parties the Board of Revenue has entertained the said revision on 23.2.2018 and summoned the record directing the parties to maintain status quo in the meantime. The said order as well as the entire proceedings are under challenge in the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Murli Dhar Mishra submits that the revision filed before the Board of Revenue is not maintainable on the ground that the same revisionist has already filed a revision before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur. The said revision is still pending. He further submits that the revisional court has granted the interim order without assigning reason. No other submission has been made.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Board of Revenue overstepped its jurisdiction by granting an interim order when the maintainability of the revision itself is under challenge.
From the material on record it is clear that the revision filed by the opposite party is still pending and the Board of Revenue has not heard the matter on the point of its maintainability. The order itself indicates that the date has been fixed to hear the matter on preliminary objections raised by the caveator, the petitioner herein, hence in my opinion no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution, at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to raise plea taken in the writ petition before the Board of Revenue which shall consider the submission of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months.
With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Digamber