- (1.) JANARDAN Sahai, J. Shri Anupam Kulshrestha has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 15 in Writ Petition No. 61612 of 2005 and respondent Nos. 5 to 14 in Writ Petition No. 74742 of 2005, which may be taken on record.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties agree that these writ petition may be disposed of finally today. It appears that Smt. Chamela Devi (respondent No. 15), mother of Phool Chand, Shyam Babu and Guddu respondent Nos. 6 to 8 in Writ Petition No. 61612 of 2005 prayed that, her name be recorded as bhumidhar with non-transferable right under Section 122-E (4- F) of the U. P. Zamindari Aboli tion and Land Reforms Act. The ap plication was allowed by the Pargana Adhikari by order dated 31-1-1991 against which the Gaon Sabha filed an application for restoration which was dismissed by respondent No. 3 Sub-Divisional Officer, Soraon District Al lahabad by order dated 14-1-1994. Two revision were filed against the order; one by Gaon Sabha (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 61612 of 2005) and the other by Ram Naresh and Harish Chand (petitioners in Writ Petition No. 74742 of 2005 ). The revisions were dis missed by order dated 28-1-1997 passed by the Additional Commis sioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. Against these two orders two separate revisions were filed; one by Goan Sabha and the other by Ram Naresh and Harish Chand. The Board of Reveriue by its order dated 27-12-1997 allowed the revisions and set the order of the Additional Commissioner and of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Against these orders respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in Writ Petition No. 61612 of 2005 (respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in Writ Peti tion No. 74742 of 2005) successors of Chameli Devi filed a review application and the respondent No. 15 Chameli Devi filed a restoration application. By order dated 15-12-2004 the review ap plication was allowed by a Single Mem ber of the Board of Revenue other than the one who had decided the revisions. Against this order two restoration ap plications were filed one by the Gaon Sabha and the other by Ram Naresh and Harish Chand which have been dis missed by order dated 8-7-2005. I have heard Shri V. K. Singh learned Counsel who has appeared for Gaon Sabha and Shri Anupam Kulshrestha respondent Nos. 6 to 15 in Writ Petition No. 61612 of 2005 (respon dent Nos. 5 to 14 in Writ Petition No. 74742 of 2005) and Shri V. K. Nagaich learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 74742 of 2005, which has been filed by Ram Naresh and Harish Chand against the same orders dated 8-7-2005 and 15-12-2004 of the Board of Revenue as is assailed in Writ Petition No. 61612 of 2005.
(3.) TWO submissions were made by the Counsel for the petitioner. The first submission is that the order was ex pane without notice to them and the restoration application has been rejected on the ground that it was be lated although the delay was sufficiently explained. The other submission is that the order of the Board of Revenue on the review application is without juris diction inasmuch as it was passed by a Single Member of the Board of Revenue. Reliance is placed upon Sec tion 220 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, which gives power to the Board of Revenue to review and alter its order. Sub-section (3) of Section 220 of the Act upon which the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance is quoted below: "220. Power of Board to review and alter its order and decrees.- (1) xxxxxxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) Members not empower to alter each other's order A single member vested with all or any of powers of the Board shall not have power to alter or reverse a decree or order passed by the Board or any member other than himself. " Shri Anupam Kulshrestha Coun sel for the respondent concedes to this legal position that a Single Member of the Board of Revenue was not com petent to review the order of another member of the Board as to alter or modify it. The order of review pressed by the single member was, therefore, without jurisdiction. On the other point also I am satisfied that the application could not in the facts and circumstan ces have been rejected on the ground of delay of barely two months. The delay was explained in the affidavit alongwith Section 5 application in sup port of the recall application in which in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 it has been stated that the notice was not served and as such the Gaon Sabha could not know the date fixed for hearing. Petitioners Ram Naresh and Harish Chandra have also annexed their ap plication supported by the affidavit for condoning the delay alongwith their Writ petition No. 74742 of 2005 as An-nexure-6 taking similar ground. In the facts and circumstances the delay was liable to be condoned. In the cir cumstances both the writ petitions are allowed. The orders of the Board of Revenue dated 15-12-2004 and 8-7-2005 are quashed. The Board of Revenue shall decide the matter afresh. The case shall be heard by at least two members of the Board. The Board shall try to dispose of the case expeditiously, if possible within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it by either of the parties.;