IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 86 (MS) OF 2001 Gobind Lal Shah ….…….Petitioner. Versus Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and others. ……Respondents. Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Pande, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 29th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 02.12.2000, 16.4.1992 and 18.2.1992 passed by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 (Annexure No. 11, 12 and 15 respectively). 2. Perused the judgments and orders of all the courts below. All the three revenue courts have held that Mukund Lal Shah was granted land under the Govt. Grant Act with the condition that succession of that land will continue as per family succession and no body will have right to create a new mode of succession by executing a Will. The Collector as well as Board of Revenue has not examined the lease, which has not been disputed before it. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted only that the order of the Board of Revenue dated 2.12.2000 is bad in view of Section 91 of Uttar Pradesh 2 Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Act No. 29 of 2000). Section 91 of the U.P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000 is reproduced as under: “91. Transfer of pending proceedings. –(1) Every proceeding pending immediately before the appointed day before a court (other than High Court), tribunal, authority or officer in any area which on that day falls within the State of Uttar Pradesh shall, if it is a proceeding relating exclusively to the territory, which as from that day are the territories of Uttaranchal State, stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer of that State. (2) If any question arises as to whether any proceeding should stand transferred under sub-section (1) it shal be referred to the High Court at Allahabad and the decision of that High Court shall be final. (3) In this section.-- (a) “proceeding” includes any suit, case or appeal; and (b) “corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer” in the State of Uttaranchal means-- (i) the court, tribunal, authority or officer in which, or before whom, the proceeding would have laid if it had been instituted after the appointed day; or (ii) in case of doubt, such court, tribunal, authority, or officer in that State, as may be determined after the appointed day by the Government of that State or the Central Government, as the case may be, or before the appointed day by the Government of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh to be the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer.” 5. Sub Section (1) of Section 1 provides the transfer of proceeding relating to any area which falls within the territory of State of Uttaranchal shall stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer of that State except other than High Court. Sub Section (2) of Section 91 provides that if any question arises as to whether any proceeding should stand transferred under Sub-section (1) it shall be referred to the High Court at Allahabad and the decision of the High Court shall be final. 3 6. In the present case, relating to transfer of proceeding by the Board of Revenue no application was moved by the petitioner and neither the matter was referred to the High Court to decide the question relating as to whether the proceeding should stand transferred under Sub Section (1) of Section 91 or not instead of moving such an application, the petitioner awaited for the judgment and filed a writ petition in this High Court. Now ground 12 has been taken in the ground of the writ petition that the Board of Revenue at Lucknow has seized to exercise its jurisdiction in view of Section 91. 7. Since the petitioner did not move to the Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow for transfer of the proceedings, the ground was not opened for him to raise here but since it is purely a legal question, therefore, the matter is remitted back to the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Nainital to decide the reference within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 29.7.2008 Rathour