- (1.) THIS is an appeal filed on behalf of one Raghubir against the order of a learned single Judge dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) RAGHUBIR filed a suit for possession of a number of plots in the court of an Assistant Collector. The suit was dismissed. He filed Civil Appeal No. 371 of 1948 before the Additional commissioner of Meerut. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. The other side then filed a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue. On 29-10-1951, Mr. Ram Nagina Singh, one of the Members of the Board, heard the arguments of he parties and wrote out his judgment which he sent to another Member of the Board. Mr. J. O. N. Shukla for concurrence. Mr. Shukla on 3rd of November, 1951, without hearing the parties concurred with the opinion of Mr. Ram nagina Singh, as a result of which the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial court restored. Raghubir then filed a writ petition In this Court (Writ No. 391 of 1952 ). This came up before a bench of this Court - Mr. Justice Mootham and Mr. Justice Chaturvedi. Relying on the judgment of a Pull Bench in - 'suraj Mal v. The Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad', AIR 1953 all 264 (A), they held that the judgment of Mr. J. O. N. Shukla was a nullity as he had passed it without hearing the parties. They, therefore, passed the following order : "we consequently allow this application in part and quash the order passed by Sri J. O. N. Shukla dated 3rd November, 1951, only. " Obviously, it meant that the judgment of Mr. Ram Nagina Singh dated 29/10/1951, stood but the opinion of Mr. J. O. N. Shukla dated 3-11-1951, was held to be null and void. The case had, therefore, to go back to the Board so that the appeal might be disposed of according to law. Three days after the decision of this case the U. P. Legislature passed a new Act - U. P. Act xxx of 1953, U. P. Board of Revenue (Declaration of Procedure and Validation) Act, 1953. The act came into force on 5/12/1953. The Act provided that it was not necessary for all the members of the Board, who participated in the decision of an appeal, to actually hear, whether sitting together or separately, the parties or their counsel. Purporting to act under the provisions of this Act, the other Member of the Board, Mr. S. N. Mitra, on 18/12/1953, concurred with the opinion of Mr. Ram Nagina Singh without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard afresh.
(3.) THEREAFTER, a writ petition was again filed in this Court which was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 15/1/1954, and it is against the order of dismissal that this appeal has been filed.;