KALEY KHAN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE
LAWS(ALL)-1997-11-1
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 05,1997

KALEY KHAN Appellant
VERSUS
BOARD OF REVENUE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.Dikshit, J. - (1.) By this petition, the petitioners have challenged an order passed by Board of Revenue whereby it held that revision against an order allowing restoration is not maintainable.
(2.) The relevant facts are that petitioners Kaley Khan and Sher Ali moved for mutation on the basis of a will. The Tehsildar allowed mutation. An application for restoration was moved by Muzammil Khan, husband of opposite party Smt. Illiyasi and father of opposite party Km. Tamanna, which was rejected by Tehsildar Mawana, district Meerut and case was restored. A revision under Section 218 of U. P. Land Revenue Act was preferred by Kaley Khan and Sher Ali against order passed in appeal. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Division, on being satisfied, recommended to Board of Revenue, U. P., Lucknow, for allowing revision and setting aside of order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Mawana but the Board of Revenue, U. P., Lucknow, rejected the reference on the ground that no revision is maintainable against an order allowing restoration. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition in cases arising out of proceedings under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act. The question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether a revision under Section 218 of U. P. Land Revenue Act is maintainable against an order allowing restoration application?
(3.) The revision against an order passed in appeal was filed under Section 218 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, which reads as follows : "218. Reference to the Board.--The Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner, the Collector, the Record Officer or the Settlement Officer may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any officer subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings, and, if he is of opinion that the proceeding taken or order passed by such subordinate officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board and the Board shall thereupon pass such orders as it thinks at.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.