ARVIND KUMAR Vs. S D O FOOLPUR AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Shukla, Member. The question of law referred to this bench in March 1997 for decision is "whether a revision is maintainable under Section 218 of the U. P. L. R. Act against the order passed by S. D. O. /collector in recovery proceedings".

(2.) THE necessity of this reference arose for determining the maintainability of Reference No. 7 (sale) of 1995-96 made by the Commissioner Gorakhpur in Revision No. 10/a-1993. In this case the revisionist had deposited 1/4 of the bid amount at the time of auction on 2-12-92 and the remaining 3/4 amount was also deposited on 14-12-92 within the prescribed time. Meanwhile the opposite party moved an application before the S. D. O. on 11-12-1992 for cancelling the auction alleging irregularities. THE SDO cancelled the auction by his order dated. 18-12-92. THE application of the revisionist for recalling this order was also rejected by the S. D. O. on 22-12-92. Whereupon he filed this revision before the Commissioner who recommended cancellation of the impugned order passed by SDO.

(3.) THUS it is well settled that a revision against the order passed by the Commissioner under Rule 285-I of the ZA & LR Rules is maintainable before the Board of Revenue. However, we may also add here that under Section 219 any order and not merely an order under Section 173 & 174 of the UPLR Act or under Rule 285-I of the UPZA & LR Rules, in a case decided or proceeding held by the Commissioner is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue in view of the amendment in Para 911 of the Revenue Manual in 1979 whereby proceedings taken before the Commissioner or orders passed by him in matters relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue or sums of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue were made judicial proceedings. Any such order passed by the Commissioner was, therefore, clearly amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Board.