SOHIT KUMAR Vs. MOOL CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Shukla, Member. The revision has been filed by Sohit Kumar under Section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 18-9-98 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut in Revision No. 63/96 originally filed under Section 218 but disposed of under Section 219 of the Act. My learned predecessor passed the following order on 13-11-2000 "heard. Admit. Issue notice. Stay meanwhile. Fixed in turn for final hearing. "

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order the opposite party Mool Chandra filed the Writ Petition No. 54387 of 2000 before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court challenging the admission and stay on the ground that second revision is not maintainable before this Court. The Hon'ble Court disposed of the Writ Petition with the observation that this objection should be taken by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue and such application is made, because it is pure question of law, the Board of Revenue will decide preliminary objection after hearing both the sides. Accordingly, the opposite party has made an application for deciding this issue regarding the maintainability of this revision.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the opposite party has also cited the decision of this Court in Revision No. 31/88-99 (Munna Lal v. Hira Lal) where in a similar case the second revision filed before the Board was held to be not maintainable in view of the amendment in Section 333 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act by the Land laws (amended) Act, 1997. In that case also the revision filed before the Additional Commissioner before the amendment was rejected after the amendments and the second revision before the Board of Revenue was held to be in admissible. However, the decision of this Court in two other cases (Revision No. 13/lr-2000-01 and Revision No. 1/lr/2001-02) cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party are not relevant as in those two cases the revision was filed before the lower Court after the amendment in the Act and hence the second revision before the Board of Revenue was obviously not maintainable in view of the clear provision in sub-sub-section (2) of Section 219 of the Act. THE present case relates to a situation where the revision in the lower Court was filed u/s 218 but was decided under Section 219 after the deletion of Section 218.