Back
2016 Supreme(All) 1261
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : ANIL KUMAR, J.
SHIV MANGAL AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Versus
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) LUCKNOW DIVISION AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1422 of 2016, decided on 19th October, 2016)
Counsel :
Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudhary for the Petitioners; C.S.C., Ambika Prasad Pathak, Dinesh Pratap Singh, R.K. Sharma and Yogendra Nath Yadav for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952—Sections 229-B, 231(3), 333 and 198(4-A)—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 151, Order 6, Rule 17—Revision—Scope—Extent of—In view of Section 333, revision lies before Board of Revenue or Additional Commssioner against any order passed in a suit or proceedings, other than, proceedings under Section 198 (4-A) of the Act—Once the legislature as given a mandate by virtue of Section 333 of the Act that if any order is passed in a proceeding, the same will be revisable—Since impugned order allowing the application for impleadment moved by respondent No. 6 is revisable under Section 333 of Act and petitioners have got statutory alternative remedy available to them to file revision under Section 333 of Act—Petition held not maintainable. [Paras 10 to 18]
Result; Petition Dismissed.
Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shri Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, Shri R. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the contesting respondent, Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 and perused the record.
2. Facts in brief of the present case are that Smt. Phoola Devi filed two suits under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) claiming right and title over the land left by her deceased/husband/Dulare registered as Regular Suit Nos. 19/23/50/61/77/193/139 “Smt. Phoola Devi v. Munni Lal (Dead) represented through Shiv Mangal and others” and 198/24/51/62/78/194/138 “Smt. Phoola Devi v. Shiv Munni Lal (Dead) represented through Shiv Mangal and others”, allowed by judgment and decree dated 6.9.2011 passed by Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Sadar, Unnao, challenged by defendants-petitioners by filing two Appeal Nos. 485/2010-11 and 486/2010-11 before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
3. During the pendency of appeals, applications for impleadment have been moved by the opposite party No. 6 on the basis of agreement to sale to which petitioners-appellants have filed their objection.
4. By order dated 1.5.2015, Additional Commissioner rejected applications for impleadment.
5. On 10.9.2015, Smt. Phoola Devi died, as such, an application for substitution had been moved on behalf of her daugher/Smt. Yashoda Devi, allowed by order dated 15.10.2015.
6. Thereafter, on 15.10.2015, opposite party No. 6/Akhil Gupta moved a another application for his impleadment on the basis of agreement to sale dated 23.11.2012/26.11.2012 to which petitioners-appellants filed an objection on 7.1.2016. By order dated 11.1.2016, opposite party No. 1/Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow allowed the said application.
7. Shri R. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that against the order dated 11.1.2016 passed by opposite party No. 1, in an appeal under Section 231 (3) of the Act, petitioner has got statutory alternative remedy available to them to file revision under Section 333 of the Act. So the present writ petition is not maintainable. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment given by this Court in the case of Ram Adhar v. Collector/District Magistrate, District-Shrawasti and others, 2016 (34) LCD 890 and by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohanlal @ Mohand Das v. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (34) LCD 2033. Accordingly, he submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on the said ground.
8. Shri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners while rebutting the said contention submits that in the instant matter, an order dated 11.1.2016 passed by opposite party No. 1 thereby allowing the application for impleadment moved by the opposite party No. 6 cannot be challenged in a revision and the only remedy available to the petitioners is to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment given by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Plasto Pack and another v. Ratnakar Bank Ltd., 2002 (20) LCD 431.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
10. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Section 333 of U.P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, relevant portion is quoted herein below :
“The Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner may call for the record of any suit or proceeding (other than proceeding under sub-section (4-A) of Section 198) decided by any Court subordinate to him in which appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred,for the purpose of satisfying himself
