Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the
Revenue Officer (Original Authority), Additional Commissioner, Meerut (First
Appellate Authority) and Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh (Second Appellate
Authority) and remanded the matter to the Original Authority with the direction to
frame an additional issue as to whether the compromise decree was passed in the suit
under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and its effect. While doing so, the High
Court directed that the Original Authority shall decide the case on the basis of the
material existing on record and no party shall be allowed to lead any further
evidence.
In our opinion, when the High Court directed the Original Authority to
frame an additional issue and decide the matter afresh, there was no justification to
direct that the case be decided on the basis of existing material and no party shall
allowed to lead further evidence. This direction is wholly unwarranted.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part, impugned order is modified to
this extent that, after framing issue, as directed by the High Court, the Original
Authority shall give opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence. As the
matter has become very old, we reiterate the direction of the High Court that
proceeding shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of
receipt/production of copy of order of High Court and this order.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, August 25, 2008.