SHRI RAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition seeks to challenge an order of the Board of Revenue dated 30th June, 1977 arising out of the proceedings under Sec. 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Puttan Lal and others, respondents No. 3 to 6 filed a suit against the petitioners Sri Ram and others and respondents No. 9 and 10 under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is respect of plots situate in village Ankaripur, district Faizabad. THE suit was decreed by the trial court against which the defendants in the suit went up in appeal but the appeal was also dismissed in default in presence of the respondents on 31-12-1974. A restoration application was filed alleging that Ram Lal one of the defendants was present in court and he went to call his counsel, but found that his counsel had already left for Board of Revenue. On his return he found that the appeal had been dismissed in default. THE application for restoration was also dismissed on 17th December, 1975 for default. THE defendants thereupon filed another application for restoration of the earlier restoration application. As Ram Lai, one of the defendants, who was doing pairvi was ill, his son was sent for doing pairvi in the case. THE son of Ram Lal and counsel were present in court from 10 A. M. to 11.32 A. M. when the learned counsel went away to attend another court he was detained for 20 minutes and in the mean time the case was called out. On this the son of Ram Lal went to call the counsel but before he could bring him the restoration application was also dismissed in default in presence of the contesting respondents. THE allegations made in the application for restoration were, however, denied by the contesting respondents and their stand was that neither Ram Lal nor his son was present in Court on 17th December, 1975. THE reasons for absence on 17th December, 1975 were controverted and the Additional Commissioner by a criptic sentence observed : 'In my opinion the reasons for absence on 17th December, 1975 given on behalf of the appellants are not true' without discussing any evidence whatsoever and without giving any reason as to why he did not prefer to believe the version of the appellants. THE petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad, went up in revision and the Board of Revenue dismissed it merely on the ground that it was barred by time. He also observed that the cause shown for condonation of delay was not sufficient. THE defendants-appellants have now come to challenge the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue by filing the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision under Section 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and, therefore, to hold that the revision application was barred by time was erroneous on the face of it. Before holding a particular revision as barred by time there must be a prescribed period of limitation. In the absence of any prescribed period of limitation for filing a revision under the provisions of U. P. ZA and LR Act the Board of Revenue was not justified in dismissing the revision on the ground of limitation. LEARNED counsel referred to Article 137 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act. In so far as it is material for the purposes of the present case Article 137 reads as under :- 1 2 3 Description of Application Period of limitation Time from which the period begins to run. Any application for which no period of limitation is prescribed in this Division. Three years When the right to apply occurs. If Article 137 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act applies to the present case then the limitation would be three years because no limitation has been prescribed under the Schedule for a revision to the Board of Revenue. At one time there was some doubt whether the application contemplated jn the first column of Artice 137 of the Limitation Act would include in its ambit an application under Special Acts also, but now after the decision in U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf v. Khursheed Haider, 1971 AWR 560 there is no manner of doubt. Hon'ble K. B. Asthana, J. (as he then was) held :- "There is no good reason why the residuary Article 137 of the Schedule to the limitation Act, 1963 be not held to cover under its ambit applications and objections under the Special Laws of any other law and its language ought not to be interpreted narrowly so as to keep it confined to the applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, there being no warrant for it in the phraseology of that Article or in the scheme of the Schedule to the New Limitation Act." In this view of the matter if the residuary Article 137 may be attracted in that case three years will be the limitation where no limitation has been prescribed for filing a revision under Section 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Under the circumstances, the Board of Revenue's order dated 30th June, 1977 cannot be sustained. Likewise the order of the Additional Commissioner can also not be sustained, because if the allegations made by the appellants were correct it certainly makes out a sufficient cause and the Additional Commissioner without considering the evidence arbitrarily held that the reasons for the absence on 17th December, 1975 were not true. In the normal course I would have remanded the case for reconsideration of the application for restoration ; but the counsels for the parties are agreed that appeal be restored to its original number and be heard and decided on merits.