BHERA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India raise an identical question and can be disposed of by a single judgment Different learned Members of the Board of Revenue by their judgments of different dates following the decision of the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue in Madhosingh vs. Moti Lal (l) declined to hear the three review petitions of the petitioners before us, on the ground that the judgments against which those review applications were made, were rendered by the Members who were no longer attached to the Board of Revenue and the petitions failed in view of the interpretation given to O. 47 r. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue.

(2.) WHILE the learned counsel for the petitioners before us contend that the view taken in Madhosingh's case (1) is erroneous, the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners supported it for the reasons given therein.

(3.) ONE word more and we have done. The learned Members of the Board of Revenue in Madhosingh's case (l) have unfortunately not fully appreciated the fully, implications of Maji Mohan Kumar vs. The State of Rajasthan (5 ). That case governed an altogether different situation and has not taken the view which supports the Board's decision. As a matter of fact this authority says that even if one member of the Court. out of those who heard the case is available the review application should be heard by him alone. We respectfully agree with this view.