RAM DAS Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Mehrotra, dated 24-4 1955, dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The Board of Revenue allowed an appeal filed by the second and third Respondents against a judgment and decree obtained by the Appellant in a suit brought by the Appellant and the fourth and fifth Respondents Under Section 180 of the UP Tenancy Act, 1939. The Appellant thereafter filed an application before the Board for the review of the latter's judgment but this application was summarily dismissed on 3-8-1954 by a single member of the Board who declined to hear argument on behalf of the Appellant. The Appellant then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of that order and it is against the rejection of that petition that this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant has made two submissions. His first contention is that the review application ought to have been decided by all the members of the Board; in the alternative it is contended that as the Respondents' appeal to the Board had been allowed by two members of the Board so also ought his application in review to have been decided by two members. These questions are however concluded against the Appellant by the decision of this Court in Jaipal Singh v. The Board of Revenue,1956 AndhWR 518 in which it was held that the Board of Revenue's powers of review had been validly delegated under Rule 170 of the rules made under the Tenancy Act, 1939, to a single number whose order would be the order of the Board, subject to the limitation that no decree or order shall be modified or reversed without the concurrent judgment of two members of the Board. We are therefore of opinion that in the present case a single member of the Board had jurisdiction to dismiss the application.