RAM KRISHN MISHRA Vs. RAVISHANKAR MISHRA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 08.06.2016 (Annx.P/5) passed by the Board of Revenue.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has submitted an application before the Nazul Officer, Hoshangabad, for mutation. The said application was allowed by the Nazul Officer vide order dated 1.4.1998 and the name of the private respondent was directed to be deleted from the record. The Collector, thereafter, granted a lease of the said land in favour of the petitioner on 14.9.2005. Thereafter, after a period of about 10 years, the respondent No.1 had filed a representation before the Commissioner Division Hoshangabad, under the provisions of Clause 18, Part-IV of the Revenue Book Circular (hereinafter referred to 'RBC' for brevity). The representation was filed against the order dated 14.9.2005, by which the lease has been executed in favour of the petitioner. The representation was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. Vide order dated 10.9.2015, the Commissioner Division Hoshangabad allowed the said representation and set-aside the order dated 1.4.1998. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by the impugned order has dismissed the Revision preferred by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order passed in Revision, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is illegal on the following grounds :-