allahabad high court

Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition against the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, wherein the restoration application filed by the petitioner under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, (‘Code, 2006’) has been rejected, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. has remitted the matter to Sub Divisional Magistrate, to pass a fresh order keeping in view the direction issued by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 05-07-2021, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

The petitioner submitted that once the Board of Revenue, in exercise of its revisional powers, had set aside the earlier orders dated 19-02-2020 and 30-12-2020 and had remitted the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, he could not have ignored the order passed by the Revisional Court and reject the recall/restoration application.

The Court noted that the Board of Revenue as per Section 8 of the Code, 2006, is the chief controlling authority in all matters relating to disposal of cases, appeals or revisions. The revisional jurisdiction of the Board is provided under Section 210 of the Code, and in terms thereof, it is empowered to call for the record of any suit or proceedings decided by any subordinate revenue court, in which no appeal lies, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceedings. Thus, the Court said that the language of this Section is one of wide amplitude and embraces within its fold any suit or proceeding decided by the Revenue Courts subordinate to the Board of Revenue.

The Court said that Sub Divisional Magistrate while exercising adjudicatory powers of a judicial nature acts as a Revenue Court, as defined under Section 2(16) of the Code, 2006, and as such would be a court subordinate the Board of Revenue and subject to its revisional jurisdiction and its control and supervision.

Further, it said that when a superior court issues an order of remand to an inferior court with certain directions, the latter is obligated to decide in accordance with the said directions.

Moreover, the Court said that the respondents have not been able to dispute the lack of propriety on part of the Sub Divisional Magistrate in refusing to accord consideration to the recall application of the petitioner, disregarding the direction issued by the Board of Revenue while allowing the revision, in view of its position as the chief controlling authority having supervisory powers over all subordinate Revenue Courts.

Thus, the Court set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in Dhiraj Kumar v. Munni Devi, Case No. 01001 of 2019 and remitted the present matter to Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass fresh order.

[Brijesh Kumar Dubey v State of UP, 2023 SCC OnLine All 181, Order dated 19-05-2023]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Radhey Krishna Pandey, Advocate Manish Pandey;

Counsel for Respondent: Chief Standing Chief Ajattshatru, Advocate Awadhesh Kumar Mishra.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.