SEVA LAL Vs SRI KANT .
Bench: R.M. LODHA,ANIL R. DAVE
Case number: C.A. No.-006247-006247 / 2012
Diary number: 38769 / 2009
Advocates: R. D. UPADHYAY Vs
RACHNA GUPTA
Page 1
CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C)No.1354/2010
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6247 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1354/2010)
SEVA LAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SRI KANT & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
R.M. Lodha, J.
Leave granted.
2. On May 4, 1992 Naib Tehsildar, Bithoor, Kanpur
Nagar, allowed the application for mutation made by the
appellant. Aggrieved by the order of the Naib Tehsildar,
the present respondents preferred appeal under Section 210
of Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (for short, 'Act')
before the Sub Divisional Officer, Kanpur. The Sub
Divisional Officer by his order dated May 4, 1993 remanded
the matter to the Naib Tehsildar for fresh consideration
after giving opportunity to the parties. The appellant felt
aggrieved by the order dated May 4, 1993 passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer, Kanpur and preferred revision before
the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, under
Section 218 of the Act. The Additional Commissioner
dismissed the appellant's revision.
Page 2
CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C)No.1354/2010
2
3. Not satisfied with the order of the Additional
Commissioner, Kanpur Division, the appellant preferred
further revision under Section 219 of the Act before the
Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated
24.8.2009/1.9.2009 allowed the revision filed by the
appellant, set aside the orders of the Additional
Commissioner and the Sub Divisional Officer and restored
the order of the Naib Tehsildar passed on May 4, 1992.
4. The present respondents challenged the order of
the Board of Revenue in a Writ Petition before the
Allahabad High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court
has held that second revision preferred by the appellant
under Section 219 of the Act was not maintainable and,
accordingly, set aside the order of the Board of Revenue
and directed the parties to appear before the Naib
Tehsildar.
5. The appellant preferred the first revision before
the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, against the
order dated May 4, 1993 passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer, Kanpur under Section 218 of the Act. Section 218
read as under :-
“Section 218. Reference to the Board. – The Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner, the Collector, the Record Officer or the Settlement Officer may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or
Page 3
CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C)No.1354/2010
3
propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings, and, if he is of opinion that the proceeding taken or order passed by such subordinate officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board and the Board shall thereupon pass such orders as it thinks fit.”
6. As noted above, the Additional Commissioner,
Kanpur Division, dismissed the appellant revision preferred
under Section 218 of the Act. What Section 218 provides is
that the revisional authority mentioned therein if forms an
opinion that the order passed by the subordinate officer
needs to be varied, cancelled or reversed then it has to
refer the case with its opinion to the Board of Revenue.
There was no occasion for the Additional Commissioner to
refer the matter to the Board of Revenue as the appellant's
revision was dismissed by him. On dismissal of first
revision by the Additional Commissioner, the appellant
invoked the power of revision of the Board under Section
219 of the Act which in 1994 read as under :-
“Section 219. Revision before the Board.– The Board may call for the record of any case decided by any subordinate court, and if the subordinate court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in law; or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the Board may pass such order as it thinks
Page 4
CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C)No.1354/2010
4
fit.” 7. There was no provision in Section 219 that was
existing prior to the amendment in 1997 that if an
application has been moved by any person either to the
Board or Commissioner or Additional Commissioner or the
Collector or the Record Officer or the Settlement Officer,
no further application by the same person shall be
entertained by any of them. Sub-section (2) of Section 219
to the above effect came to be enacted for the first time
vide U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997. The amended
provision of 1997 has no application to the pending
revision applications before the Board of Revenue already
preferred under the then existing Section 219 of the Act.
In the present case, the appellant has preferred revision
under Section 219 before the Board of Revenue against the
order of the Additional Commissioner in 1994. That
revision is maintainable in law under unamended Section 219
of the Act.
8. The view of the High Court is thus clearly wrong
that the revision application preferred by the appellant
before the Board of Revenue under Section 219 of the Act
was not maintainable.
9. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed, the impugned
order dated November 9, 2009 is set aside and Writ Petition
No. 59678 of 2009 titled “Srikant and Ors. Vs. Board of
Page 5
CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C)No.1354/2010
5
Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and Ors.” is restored to the file of
the Allahabad High Court for hearing and consideration on
merits in accordance with law. No costs.
.........................J. ( R.M. LODHA )
NEW DELHI; .........................J. SEPTEMBER 3, 2012. ( ANIL R. DAVE )