Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8.
(2.) An application for mutation was filed by the respondents 5 to 8 on the basis of a sale deed said to have been executed by Raj Durlari Devi the petitioner's mother. The mutation application was allowed by order-dated 23.10.1992 of the Naib Tehsildar. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed an application for recall, which was rejected by order dated 17.8.1993. The petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 15.2.1996 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Against this order the petitioner filed a revision. This revision was allowed by order dated 7.9.1998 and the order dated 15.2.1996 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the order of the Naib Tehsildar set aside, and the case was remanded to the Naib Tehsildar for final decision. The respondents 5 to 8 filed a recall application dated 7.9.1998, which recall application was rejected by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 2.11.1998. Against the order of the Additional Commissioner the respondents filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which has been allowed by the Board of Revenue by order dated 20.11.1998. It appears that during the pendency of the revision the provisions of section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act were amended by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997 with effect from 18.8.1997. The finding of the Board is that the amended provisions of-section 219 were not applicable and that the Commissioner could not have finally allowed the revision itself.
(3.) The submission of Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the amending Act itself contains a transitory provision, namely, section 10, which provides that pending revisions shall be decided in accordance with the amended provision. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of this Court in Shri Ram v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others, 1999 (90) RD 467. It was held in that case that in view of the transitory provision only references which were pending before the Board of Revenue were saved and revisions pending before the commissioner or the Additional Commissioner were not saved. It was held that the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner had power to decide the revision under the amended section 219 of the Act and it was not necessary to make a reference under section 218 Land Revenue Act. The decision applies to the facts of the present case. The order passed by the Board of Revenue, therefore deserves to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 20.11.1998 is set aside. Petition Allowed.;