- (1.) RAJES Kumar, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. K. Yadav, holding brief of Sri Anuj Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petition ers submitted that the petitioners have rightly preferred revision against the order of the S. D. M. , Gyanpur, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar dated 7. 10. 2003 before the Board of Revenue under section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). The Member has illegally dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioners have a special remedy under section 201 of the Act, there fore, there is no reason to allow this revision. Learned Counsel for the petition ers submitted that under section 201 of the Act provides that no appeal shall lie from an order passed under section 200 ex-parte or by default. It further provides, giving a right to move an application for the recall ing of the order on a proof of good cause for his non- appearance. He submitted that even if the petitioners did not move the application for recalling of the order, the revision cannot be rejected merely on this ground. Learned Counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel submit that the matter may be re manded back to the Board to decide the revision afresh on merit.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order dated 27. 3. 2008 passed by the Board of Revenue. In my opinion, it is not sustainable. It is true that on cause being shown for non-appearance, the petitioners had a right to move recalling application before the same authority in case ex-parte order is being passed but if the petitioners have not moved any application for recalling of the order, revision cannot be thrown on this ground. Against the order of the S. D. M. , revision is maintainable under sec tion 219 of the Act before the Board and in case if it is preferred, the Board has to decide the revision on merit. In the present case, the Board has failed to decide the re vision on merit and has declined to con sider on the ground that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under section 201 of the Act and the revision has been rejected. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27. 3. 2008 is set aside and the matter is re manded back to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision No. 100 LR/03-04, Murli Dhar and others v. State of U. P. and others, afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all the con cerned parties in accordance to law. The petitioners may file certified copy of the order within two weeks and the Board is directed to decide the revision within an other six weeks thereafter. Petition Allowed. .;