OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner is assailing the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 15.12.2008 and the order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner, in an appeal, has remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for deciding the matter afresh and the said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue also did not interfere in the remand order. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order remanding the matter is a non-speaking order and as such, the same has to be quashed. I have perused the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue. While remanding the matter, the appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the grounds taken in the appeal are sufficient insofar as the opposite parties are unable to lead their evidence with regard to the preliminary issues, which have been framed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In the earlier set of proceedings, the matter went upto the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue had remanded the matter by an order dated 5.8.1999. As the matter is lingering between the parties since 1950, the opposite party No.2 is directed to hear the matter on day-to-day basis and decide the proceedings expeditiously, say, by 31.7.2009. It is made clear that adjournment shall not be granted to any party on any ground whatsoever. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.