Writ B. No. 3826 of 2014. Case: Jagdish and Anr. Vs Board of Revenue and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Writ B. No. 3826 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Prakash Chandra,Adv.and For Respondents: C.S.C. and Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Adv. |
| Judges | Ran Vijai Singh, J. |
| Issue | Constitution Of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 229B |
| Citation | 2014 122 RD 597 |
| Judgement Date | January 21, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Ran Vijai Singh, J.
-
Heard Sri Prakash Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Through this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.11.2013 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 3 of 2003-04 (Raghuwar v. State of U.P. and others) and order dated 30.10.2003 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in Appeal No. 24 of 1997 (Smt. Batto v. Raghuwar and others).
-
Vide order dated 30.10.2003 the learned Additional Commissioner has allowed Appeal No. 24 of 1997 filed against the judgment and order dated 28.12.1996 passed in Suit No. 40 of 1995-96 filed under section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short the Act) after setting aside the order dated 28.12.1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and remitted the matter before him for deciding the case on each and every issues after providing opportunity of hearing/to adduce evidence etc. The petitioners have filed second appeal that has been dismissed.
-
The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 6 has filed Case No. 40 of 1995-96 under section 229B of the Act in which the Trial Court has decided four preliminary issues and held that the suit itself is not maintainable. Against that judgment an appeal was filed. Before the Appellate Court it was argued that the appeal is barred by time and the delay has wrongly been condoned. The Appellate Court held mat appeal is within time and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28.12.1996. Against this judgment second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue and before the Board of Revenue where only question of limitation was raised. Learned Member, Board of Revenue refused to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal taking note of the fact that there was no delay in filing the appeal keeping in mind that ultimately substantial justice is to be done to the parties.
-
Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that apart from limitation other points have also...
To continue reading
Request your trial