K.N.Misra, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused order passed by the Board of Revenue.
(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows:- "An application for mutation was tiled by Smt. Sumitra Devi, opposite party no. 2 on the basis of a lease executed by Land Management Committee. This application for mutation was filed on 22nd November, 1972 on the basis of lease dated 14th November, 1972. An objection was filed by petitioner Arjun claiming the land in dispute to be belonging to him and that Gaon Sabha has no right, title or interest in it. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the mutation application. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed revision under Section 218 of the Land Revenue Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). Additional Commissioner, Meerut, submitted reference dated 2nd August, 1974 to the Board of Revenue recommending that the order of mutation passed in favour of opposite party No. 2 be set aside observing that the land in dispute was not recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. This reference was fixed for hearing before the Board of Revenue at Lucknow and was dismissed in default on 1st January, 1979 as in spite of notice neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared to press the revision. The petitioner on 14th December, 1979 moved an application for restoration alleging that he had no notice about the date of the hearing in the case and as such the revision be restored and heard on merits. The application for restoration was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 29th August, 1981 with the observations that the reasons given in the application for restoration explaining delay in filing the restoration application were not satisfactory. The revision was dismissed on 1st January, 1979 while the restoration application was moved after a long delay on 14th December, 1979. A registered notice was sent intimating the date of hearing and in these circumstances the Board of Revenue was not satisfied with the reasons indicated for the delay in filing the restoration application and dismissed it. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in this Court."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when a reference was made under section 218 of the Act by the Additional Commissioner with the observation that the order of mutation passed by the trial court was illegal, the reference could not be dismissed in default and the Board of Revenue acted illegally and without jurisdiction in dismissing it. Learned counsel further contended that when the record of the case was summoned and it was before the Board of Revenue, the revision could not be dismissed in default and it should have been restored. He further pointed out that sufficient reasons were shown for restoring the revision and the Board of Revenue acted illegally in dismissing it. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Mohammad Sajed Quresi and another v. Mst. Sabira and another, 1976 A.W.C. 775 wherein it was observed that:- "It is, therefore, clear that if the District Judge had no jurisdiction to dismiss the revision for default his order dismissing the same could not amount to a dismissal on merit but only an order without jurisdiction. If the District Judge passed an order committing illegality by dismissing the revision for which he had no jurisdiction, it was wholly within his jurisdiction to rectify the said mistake by recalling that order and restoring the revision to its original number.";