Heard.
On being asked as to the delay in filing of this writ petition challenging the order of the Revisional Court dated 20.10.2015 by which the revision was dismissed in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist albeit on merits Shri Arun Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an eighty year old illiterate lady, who is still in possession of the land which was granted to her on lease which was subsequently cancelled and that being illiterate and old she could not come to know about the dismissal of the revision. In fact she came to know about it only when Revenue Authorities asked her to vacate the land in the 3rd week of August, 2019. He says that he undertakes to appear before the Board of Revenue to argue the revision on every day the matter is fixed if this Court is kind enough to quash the revisional order and remand the matter back for a decision on merits.
Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 says that the petitioner is not in possession. The Court takes note of the aforesaid observation without drawing any conclusion in this regard.
Considering the fact that the petitioner is an eighty year old lady and is said to be illiterate as also the fact that while deciding the revision the petitioner's counsel was not present and there is no discussion of the facts, issues and evidence involved and on record, in fact that Revisional Court has formed a prima facie opinion as is mentioned in the order by use of the words 'Pratham Drishtaya', which itself was not justified as while finally deciding the revision a conclusive opinion has to be formed and the revision could not have been dismissed on a prima facie view of the matter and as essentially, it appears that it was a dismissal for want of prosecution and only cursorily general observations have been made by the Revisional Court without appropriately touching the merits of the issues involved therein, therefore, the revisional order considering the explanation of delay offered, is quashed. The revision of the petitioner shall stand restored and the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow shall now decide the revision in accordance with law, say, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted.
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the merits and issues involved which may be seen by the Revisional Court as already stated hereinabove.
The writ petition is allowed in part.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 R.K.P.