MURLIDHAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJES Kumar, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. K. Yadav, holding brief of Sri Anuj Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petition ers submitted that the petitioners have rightly preferred revision against the order of the S. D. M. , Gyanpur, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar dated 7. 10. 2003 before the Board of Revenue under section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). The Member has illegally dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioners have a special remedy under section 201 of the Act, there fore, there is no reason to allow this revision.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order dated 27. 3. 2008 passed by the Board of Revenue. In my opinion, it is not sustainable. It is true that on cause being shown for non-appearance, the petitioners had a right to move recalling application before the same authority in case ex-parte order is being passed but if the petitioners have not moved any application for recalling of the order, revision cannot be thrown on this ground. Against the order of the S. D. M. , revision is maintainable under sec tion 219 of the Act before the Board and in case if it is preferred, the Board has to decide the revision on merit. In the present case, the Board has failed to decide the re vision on merit and has declined to con sider on the ground that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under section 201 of the Act and the revision has been rejected.