MAHAVIR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.7.2001 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Board of Revenue in proceedings under Sec. 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The proceedings under Sec. 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary proceedings in which title of the parties are not required to be decided. This Court in several decisions has taken the view that the writ petitions arising out of the proceedings under Sec. 34 of the said Act cannot be entertained by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Similar view has been expressed in Smt. Rani Devi Vs. Board of Revenue, 1999 R.D. 633. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case the Board of Revenue has decided the questions of law' on merit and prejudiced the case of the petitioner. The decision in proceedings under Sec. 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are always subject to adjudication by regular Court. The decision does not bind the regular Court while deciding the title. Counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Smt. Saraswati alias Ramsitit Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. and others., 1991 RD 313. In the aforesaid case also this Court took the view that normally the High Court will not interfere in writ petitions arising out of the proceedings under Sec. 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. Where the rights of parties have not determined finally, the High Court normally will not interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In Sent. Saraswati's case this Court interfered due to reason that the order which was ex parte and was set aside on payment of costs of Rs. 30.00 was interfered by the revisional Court whereas explanation was also given for non payment of cost within time. In the peculiar circumstances of that case the Court took the view that interference by Revisional Court was abuse of process of Court. This Court in a judgment has again considered the scope of proceedings under Sec. 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and the cases in which this Court under Art. 226 can interfere in proceedings arising under Sec. 34 of the said Act in Writ No. 33610 of 2001, Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue decided on 31.10.2001 where it was held:

(3.) The Division Bench of this Court in, Jaipal Minor Vs. The Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad and others, 1956 ALJ 807. has laid down the exceptions in which interference can be caused in writ jurisdiction in proceedings arising out of mutation. The present case do not come under any of the exceptions as laid down in the case of jaipal (supra). The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the Board of Revenue is ex parte and the same has been passed without hearing the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to file a restoration application before Board for hearing if the order was passed ex parte.