The Allahabad High Court has observed that a sub-divisional magistrate, exercising adjudicatory powers, acts as a revenue court, and would be subject to the control & supervision of the Board of Revenue

The Court further held that it is beyond cavil that when a superior court issues a remand order to an inferior one, the latter is obligated to decide in accordance with the same.

A Single Bench of Justice Y.K. Srivastava held, “It would be beyond cavil 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. … Counsel for the State respondents and the counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, have not been able to dispute the lack of propriety on the 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.”

The Bench said that the counsel for the parties are ad idem on the point that it would serve the interest of justice if the case is remitted for passing a fresh order, after taking into consideration the order passed by the Board of Revenue in the revision.

Advocate Radhey Krishna Pandey represented the petitioner while Additional CSC Abhishek Shukla and Advocate Awadhesh Kumar Mishra represented the respondents.

In this case, the counsel for the petitioner confined his relief to a challenge to the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate whereby the restoration application filed by the petitioner in proceedings under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, was rejected. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner claimed to have purchased certain land parcels by means of a sale deed and his name was also mutated in the revenue records in terms of an order.

Thereafter, upon coming to know with regard to the pendency of a declaratory suit filed by the respondents in respect of the said land, an impleadment application was filed which was dismissed for want of prosecution by an order and the restoration application filed thereagainst was also rejected. After rejection of the said application, the petitioner preferred a revision which was allowed by the Board of Revenue after coming to a conclusion that the affected party has a right to be heard in a judicial proceeding.

The High Court after hearing the arguments of the counsel directed, “The matter is remitted to respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order keeping in view the direction issued by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 05.07.2021 passed in Case No. REV/158/2021 (Computerized Case No. AL2021165300158), 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.”

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the plea and set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

Cause Title- Brijesh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and 8 Others (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:110490)

Click here to read/download the Judgment