Chaturvedi, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing an order of the Board of Revenue dated 19-5-58.
(2.) The necessary facts of the case are in a short compass. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed an applica-tion under Section 20 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for being reinstated la the plots in suit on the ground that they were adhi-vasis. The petitioner contested the application and denied that the respondents had acquired adhivasi rights. The trial court decided the case on 27-2-54 holding that the respondents had acquired the rights of adhivasi. The petitioners then went up in appeal to the Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal by his order dated 4-6-54. He held that the respondents had not acquired adhivasi rights. On 17-1-55 the respondents filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. This petition appears to have been placed in Chambers of a Member of the Board, Mr. A. N. Sapru, who dismissed it on 13-4-55. He dismissed it on the ground that the revision was barred by time inasmuch as the order sought to be revised was dated 4-6-54 and the revision petition was filed on 17-1-55. It appears that the Board usually allows a period of four months for filing a revision application. According to the respondents, they did not come to know of the dismissal of their revision for a long time and it was on 9-1-58 that respondent No. 2 filed an application purporting to be under Section 151 C. P. C. praying that the ex parte order of the 13th April 1955 be set aside. In the meantime Mr. A. N. Sapru had ceased to be a Judicial member of the Board and was put in charge of the administrative work, with headquarters at Lucknow, The application for setting aside that ex parte order came up before Mr. Ram Ker Singh, a Judicial Member of the Board, and Mr, Ram Ker Singh allowed the application on 19-5-58 without issuing any notice of the application to the. petitioner. It would thus appear that the respondents were not heard when the revision application was dismissed and the petitioner was not beard when the dismissal order was set aside. After setting aside the order dismissing the revision a date was fixed for hearing the revision on merits and notices were ordered to be issued to the parties. Before, however, the revision could be heard by " the Judicial Member, tbe present writ petition was filed on 19-1-59 and an interim order was issued by this Court directing the Board of Revenue not to hear and decide the revision till further orders from this Court. The writ petition itself has now come up for final hearing before us.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged number of grounds in support of the writ petition, but we shall only deal with those which are necessary to be decided, because, in our view, on some of the points interference by this Court will not be justified, for substantial justice has been done and the revision filed by the respondents has now to be heard and decided on its merits.;