BANDHU RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State respondents. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by respondent No. 2 in Revisions No. 87/96, 88/96 and 198/2004, Gulaba v. Indra and others, by which the Revision Nos. 87/96, 88/96 and 198/2004 were allowed and the orders passed by the Court below dated 28.5.1996 and 15.11.1989 were set aside. The matter was sent back for passing an appropriate order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The aforesaid revisions were filed by the respondents.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned standing counsel stating that writ petition would not be maintainable before this Court as the petitioners have remedy of revision, against the order impugned, before the Board of Revenue.

(3.) Sri S.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioners contends that by virtue of the amendment made in the year 1997, the Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue have been put at par and if the order has been passed by the Divisional Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, a revision would not lie before the Board of Revenue. He has also submitted that assuming the revision is maintainable even then remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not barred as the order impugned suffers from the vice of principle of natural justice.