VIR KRISHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the controversy involved in both the writ petitions is same, these two writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) By means of present writ petitions, petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dtd. 6/1/2017 passed by Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun in restoration application no.96 of 2005-06 and restoration application no.95 of 2005-06 Madhur Sharma and others vs. State of Uttaranchal.

(3.) Facts leading to filing of present writ petitions are that the petitioner and proforma respondents filed separate applications for mutation of their names in revenue record on the basis of Will dtd. 2/9/1995 executed by Smt. Vidyawati in favour of petitioner and proforma respondents. Vide judgment and order dtd. 30/11/1998, both the applications were allowed and the names of petitioner as well as proforma respondents were recorded in revenue record. Against the judgment and order dtd. 30/11/1998, respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 filed two appeals under Sec. 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, before the court of record officerCollector, Dehradun. Although the appeals were filed by the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 after a lapse of almost 7 years but the appeals were not accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. Vide order dtd. 5/4/2006, learned Collector, Dehradun registered the appeals and issued notices to the opposite parties. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner herein filed two separate revisions numbered as Revision No.89 of 2005-06 and Revision No.90 of 2005-06 before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner. Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner, vide order dtd. 7/7/2006, allowed both the revisions on the ground that the appeals were filed beyond the period of limitation, but the court has entertained the appeal without condoning the delay, and remitted the matter back to the learned Collector to first hear the parties on the question of condonation of delay and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved, respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 filed two separaterecall applications for recalling the order dtd. 7/7/2006 whereupon the Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner has stayed the operation and effect of order dtd. 7/7/2006 under recall. In the meantime, court of Chief Revenue Commissioner and Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner were abolished in State of Uttarakhand and Board of Revenue was constituted and as such the case was transferred to the court of Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Thereafter, Vide order dtd. 30/4/2015, Board of Revenue appointed District Government Counsel (Revenue) as Court Commissioner to submit a report in regard to mutation taken place till 2015 qua the land in question. Petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred two separate writ petitions before this Court. After hearing the parties, this Court allowed the writ petitions and remitted the matter back to the Board of Revenue to decide the restoration applications expeditiously. Subsequently, the matter was heard and vide judgment and order dtd. 6/1/2017, learned Board of Revenue allowed the restoration applications filed by the respondents. Hence, this writ petition.