NAZIM HUSAIN AND OTHERS Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P., ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners challenge the order of the Board of Revenue, allowing the revision application filed by the Respondent No. 4 under the UP Encumbered Estates Act. The revision application was heard by Sri Ram Kinker Singh, a Judicial Member of the Board of Revenue, who by his order dated 2 -1 -1963 allowed the revision application subject to the concurrence of the other Judicial Member. The case was then laid before Sri R.R. Mathur, another Judicial Member, but Sri Mathur in the view that the concurrence of another member of the Board was unnecessary, returned the case to Sri Ram Kinker Singh. Thereupon, Sri Ram Kinker Singh, as Judicial Member, made an order in terms of his earlier judgment.

(2.) THE Petitioners contend that the view taken by Sri R.R. Mathur that the concurrence of another member was unnecessary is contrary to law. Reliance has been placed upon Rule 190 of the UP Revenue Court Manual which provides,

(3.) IT is then urged that the Board has, erred in holding that the entries made after the abolition of Zamindari were alone to be considered for determining the rights of the parties. Now the Board has come to that view on the reasoning that new rights had been created upon the abolition of Zamindari and no Amaldaramad could to made without looking into the existing entries in the records of rights. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and I am unable to say that the view taken, by the Board is manifestly erroneous in law.