Rajes Kumar - (1.) HEARD Sri R. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in reply to the notice under Section 33 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply dated 15.2.2007 establishing his title over the land in dispute. The S.D.M., Phoolpur, Allahabad vide order dated 27.8.2007 decided 40 cases by one order. In the said order, the reply of the petitioner has not been considered at all. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed revision before the Member, Board of Revenue. The Member, Board of Revenue also dismissed the revision without considering the case of the petitioner and without giving any reason following the reasoning given in Revision No. 132/L.R./2007-08 in the case of Trinetra Pratap Singh v. Gaon Sabha, decided on 13.2.2008. He submitted that each case depends upon the facts of its own case and, therefore, each case should be individually dealt with by the S.D.M., Phoolpur, Allahabad and Member, Board of Revenue. But neither the S.D.M., Phoolpur, Allahabad nor the Member, Board of Revenue has dealt with the petitioner's case and passed the order against the petitioner. On the facts and circumstances, learned standing counsel states that let the matter be sent back to the S.D.M., Phoolpur, Allahabad to decide the matter afresh.
(3.) IN view of the above, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally. I have perused the order of the S.D.M., Phoolpur, Allahabad dated 27.8.2007. By the impugned order, the S.D.M., Phoolpur, Allahabad has decided 40 cases. Perusal of the order reveals that reply of the petitioner has not been considered at all. The manner in which the S.D.M., Phoolpur, Allahabad has passed the order is not appreciable. When the S.D.M. has proposed to expunge the name of the petitioner from the revenue records in respect of the land in dispute which amounts taking away the right of the petitioner to enjoy the property. The S.D.M. should have dealt with the matter carefully. In the circumstances, each and individual case should be decided separately after considering their reply. In this view of the matter, the order of the S.D.M., Phoolpur, Allahabad is vitiated. Another unfortunate part of the present case is that the Member, Board of Revenue, who exercises the judicial power while deciding the revision has also passed a laconic non-speaking order without dealing with the case of the petitioner. The Member, Board of Revenue, who acts as a Judicial Officer should pass a judicial order which requires consideration of the case of the parties and the reasoning for arriving to the conclusion. In the present case, the case of the petitioner has not at all been considered and while dismissing the revision, no reason has been assigned. Therefore, the order of the Member, Board of Revenue is patently a non-judicial order which cannot be sustained.;