BUDH PAL Vs. SMT. MUNNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 220 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, seeking review of the Boards order dated 27-5-1992 passed in Reference No. 218 (LR) of 1983-84/Shahjahanpur, arising out of proceedings under Sec. 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

(2.) Concisely set forth, the facts leading to the instant review petition are that Khasra plots Nos. 89-A (area 3.85) and 89-B (2.85) were recorded as bhumidhari of Jorawar Singh, Dharar Singh and Budhpal Singh. On 13-10-1980, Budhpal Singh executed a sale-deed in respect of his ⅓rd share in favour of Smt. Munni Devi, On 14-1-1981, Smt. Munni Devi applied for mutation in her favour on the basis of the sale-deed. On 16-11-1981, Budhpal Singh filed an objection, stating therein that he was not aware of the sale; that he did not execute any sale deed ; that his thumb mark had been obtained unknowingly and that the land in question was in possession of the Land Development Bank as it had been mortgaged to the Bank. The Tahsildar disallowed the mutation application by his order dated 31-12-1981. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and directed that mutation be made in favour of Smt. Munni Devi. Aggrieved by this order, Budhpal Singh filed a revision under Sec. 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated 7-7-1988 made a reference to the Board recommending that the revision be allowed, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer be set aside and the case be remanded to him for disposal afresh after getting new proclamation issued. The Board after hearing both the parties was of the view that fresh proclamation was not necessary as both the parties had put in appearance and contest before the lower court and that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was correct and justified as sale-deed had been executed in favour of Smt. Munni Devi. Disagreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, the Board maintained the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and directed that mutation be made in favour of Smt Munni Devi. On 8-6-1992, Budhpal Singh filed the present review petition on the ground that the learned Additional Commissioner did not hear the parties on merits; that the revision had been recommended for being allowed on a technical ground ; that the sale is defective as Budhpal Singh had transferred the land specifying the side of the land and that the sale is hit by the provisions of Sec. 22 of the Land Development Bank Act.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case. The mere fact that the Learned Additional Commissioner did not dispose of the revision on merits is of no material consequence as the entire matter was under consideration of the Board. Several points were raised on behalf of the revisionist, Budhpal Singh, before the learned Additional Commissioner who made a reference to the Board only on the point concerning issue of proclamation.