K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a Defendant's writ Petition against the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue dated 12 -11 -81 whereby he allowed the review Petition and directed the Second Appeal to be heard by the Member concerned having jurisdiction over Meerut Division. On 7 -8 -1979 the learned Member had allowed both the appeals and had set aside the decree passed by the 1st appellate Court and had remanded the case to the appellate Court for fresh decision.
(2.) THE grounds for allowing the review Petition are contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment dated 12 -11 -1981. The grounds mentioned at paragraph No. 8 of the impugned judgment are not at all clear as to what mistakes were committed by the learned Member while allowing the second appeal on 7 -8 -1979. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner suggested to me during the course of arguments that the mistakes in the original judgment dated 7 -8 -1979 were only of clerical nature and if those mistakes were rectified, the ultimate decision could not be varied, whereas the learned Counsel for the contesting opposite party has only emphasised that the learned Member has considered the mistakes. In paragraphs 6, 9 and 10 of the original judgment as mistakes apparent on the face of the record and on that ground he recalled his earlier order, no interference should be made with the impugned judgment. In para 3 of the impugned judgment the mistakes mentioned appear to me only of clerical nature, hence I am not prepared to hold that the mistakes in the original judgment dated 7 -8 -1979 were such mistakes as could justify interference by the learned Member in a review Petition. The reasoning contained in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment is no reasoning in the eye of law nor the reasoning is in speaking terms. Hence the impugned judgment suffers from mistake apparent on the face of the record and deserves to be set aside. I am not in agreement with the contention of the learned Counsel for the contesting opposite party that the impugned judgment calls for no interference on the basis of the reasoning contained in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment.
(3.) ANOTHER ground for allowing the review Petition by the learned Member through the impugned judgment is that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. According to him the link officer could only deal with urgent matter such as admission of appeals, revisions etc. and to grant stay orders. In this connection it would be proper to quote paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment as below: There is no provision for transferring appeals etc. by link officer to link officer. The practice prevalent in the Bord for transferring appeals etc. to the link officer by some Members and some Members used to write to Senior Member of the Board for transferring such appeals etc. but the practice will not make law. Distribution for the business of the Board by amendment of Rule 73 of the Revenue Manual has been given to Seniormost Member as has been held in Baharuddin v. Gaon Sabha, 1956 RD 53 by Full Bench of the Board at Allahabad which is approved by the Senior Most Member and thus it is a distribution by Board. The link officers have been authorised to hear admission of appeals, revisions etc. and to grant stay orders but there is no mention regarding transfer of appeals etc. to link officer, therefore, it appears that they should be transferred only by Senior -most Member and not by the link officer. In this view of the matter the appeals have been wrongly decided by me having no jurisdiction, therefore, for this reason alone these review applications are liable to be allowed.;