- (1.) HEARD Sri Subodh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pawan Kishore, learned Counsel for the respondents 2,9 and 10 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1,11,12 and 13.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioners had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 3 of155 of 2001, which was disposed of by order dated 16. 8. 2007 relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy before the Land Reforms Commissioner under Section 18 (3) of Land Acquisition Act. After the order passed by this Court the petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act on the foundation that the power of the Land Reforms Commissioner were conferred upon the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision as not maintainable on the ground that there was nothing to show that the functions of the Land Reforms Commissioner were required to be performed by the Board of Revenue. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the standing Counsel in which a copy of the Notification dated 4. 12. 1956 has been annexed in which it is provided that the Board of Revenue will perform all duties and functions of the Land Reforms Commissioner. The view taken by the Board of Revenue, therefore, that the revision was not maintainable before it, is erroneous. In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 30. 10. 2007 is quashed. The Board of Revenue shall decide the revision in accordance with law. As this order has been passed without issuing notice to the respondents 3 to 8 it is open to them to file a review application in case they feel aggrieved by this order. Needless to say if the petitioners file a stay application in the revision before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously and without delay. .;