- (1.) S. N. Shukla, Member. The revision has been filed by Sohit Kumar under Section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 18-9-98 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut in Revision No. 63/96 originally filed under Section 218 but disposed of under Section 219 of the Act. My learned predecessor passed the following order on 13-11-2000 "heard. Admit. Issue notice. Stay meanwhile. Fixed in turn for final hearing. "
(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order the opposite party Mool Chandra filed the Writ Petition No. 54387 of 2000 before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court challenging the admission and stay on the ground that second revision is not maintainable before this Court. The Hon'ble Court disposed of the Writ Petition with the observation that this objection should be taken by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue and such application is made, because it is pure question of law, the Board of Revenue will decide preliminary objection after hearing both the sides. Accordingly, the opposite party has made an application for deciding this issue regarding the maintainability of this revision. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the revision was filed before the Commissioner under the old Section 218 of the Act which was subsequently deleted by the U. P. Land Laws (Amendment Act) 1997 which came into force with effect from 18-8-97. Since the revision was filled before the amendment it will be deemed to have been disposed of under Section 218 as it existed then and there could be no automatic disposal of such cases under Section 219 of the Act after the amendment. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that it was not open to the lower Court to change the section under which the revision was filed originally and the cases filed under Section 218 before the amendment will not be hit by its deletion by the amending Act, 1997 in view of the provisions of clause (e) of Section 6 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904. Since the original case the revision was under Section 218 of the Act the bar regarding the second revision by the same person under Section 219 (2) of the Act does not apply to the present case. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Kali Shankar Dwivedi v. Board of Revenue and others, (2000- (18) LCD 1401 ). In that case the revision filed before the Additional Collector under Section 218 before its deletion wa actually disposed of by the Additional Collector under Section 219 of the Act and was partly allowed by the order dated 14-9-98. The second revision filed by the same revisionist before the Board of Revenue was allowed by the Board vide order dated 12-7-99. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court on the ground, inter-alia, that the second revision was not maintainable in view of the new Section 219 of the Act. However, it was held that the substituted Section 219 of the Act has prospective effect and it does not affect the cases pending in revision on the coming into force of the amendment act. Therefore, the old law applies. The argument that the previous law applies to pending proceedings under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was accepted and it was held that the revision pending before the Court below (the Board of Revenue, was not hit by the newly substituted Section 219 of the Act. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that since the revision filed by the revisionist before the Commissioner was rejected by the Commissioner under Section 219 of the amended Act, this second revision filed by him before this Court is not maintainable in view of the bar imposed by sub-section (2) of Section 219 of the Act. In support of this argument the learned counsel of the opposite party has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Sri Ram v. Board of Revenue, 1999 R. D. Page 467. In that case the revision filed before the amendment in the Act was decided by the Additional Commissioner under the substituted Section 219. The Board of Revenue remanded the matter/case to the Additional Commissioner for deciding it afresh as per the old Section 218 of the Act. This view of the Board was held to be incorrect by the Hon'ble High Court. It was held that the amending Act saved only the references pending before the Board and the revision pending before the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner will not saved. As such the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner ought to have decided the revision pending before him no 18-8-97 under Section 219. As a result the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue was set-aside.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the opposite party has also cited the decision of this Court in Revision No. 31/88-99 (Munna Lal v. Hira Lal) where in a similar case the second revision filed before the Board was held to be not maintainable in view of the amendment in Section 333 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act by the Land laws (amended) Act, 1997. In that case also the revision filed before the Additional Commissioner before the amendment was rejected after the amendments and the second revision before the Board of Revenue was held to be in admissible. However, the decision of this Court in two other cases (Revision No. 13/lr-2000-01 and Revision No. 1/lr/2001-02) cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party are not relevant as in those two cases the revision was filed before the lower Court after the amendment in the Act and hence the second revision before the Board of Revenue was obviously not maintainable in view of the clear provision in sub-sub-section (2) of Section 219 of the Act. THE present case relates to a situation where the revision in the lower Court was filed u/s 218 but was decided under Section 219 after the deletion of Section 218. In reply the learned Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the full bench decision of Punjab High Court in M/s. Indo Swiss Time Limited v. Umrao and others, AIR 1981 P and H 213 wherein it was laid down that in case of the conflict between two decisions of the equal benches which possible can not be reconciled the judgment which appears to lay down the law more accurately and elaborately must be followed. In the present case since there is apparent difference in the two decisions of the Allahabad High Court referred to above the issue has to be decided keeping in view of the principle laid down in the full bench decision of the P and H High Court cited above.;