RAMSWAROOP Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six writ petitions before us under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India involve common questions and they have been heard together. We consider it proper to dispose them of by a common order.

(2.) FOR proper determination of the questions involved in these writ petitions, it will be useful to notice the facts as stated in Rajendra Prasad vs. The Board of Revenue (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1455 of 1980 ).

(3.) THE principal point that has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Board could not dismiss the revision petitions after they were registered and admitted, for, it will be deemed that the Board under proviso to r. 17 of the manual has impliedly dispensed with the production of the copy of the judgment of the court of first instance i. e. Sub-Divisional Officer. It may be mentioned here that this point was raised on behalf of the petitioners during the hearing of the review petitions. THE learned single Member of the Board opined that in the circumstances, the Board did not dispense with the filing of the copy of the judgment of the trial court and that power to dispense with the production of copy of the judgment under proviso to r. 17 is discretionary and when this discretion was not exercised nor any attempt was made by the petitioners to claim dispensation at the time of hearing of revision petitions, it is difficult to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Board at the stage of review.