2021 Supreme(All) 252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sangeeta Chandra, J.
Amarjeet - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. & Another - Respondent
MISC. SINGLE No. -3140 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2021

Point of law: It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order in exercise of judicial power in a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by it self, and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of justice delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Sections 97, 115, 96, 100 – U.P. Revenue Code 2006 – Sections 207, 116, 209, 109 – Shares of the tenure holders – Revenue Records – By means of the present writ petition the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Appeal Amrik Singh and others vs. Amarjeet Singh and others. – The petitioner is a tenure holder of Gata no. 48/2, Advocate Appeared :-measuring 1.207 ha situated at village Bahadur Nagar, Pargana Aurangabad, Tehsil Mithauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri and, the petitioner had filed an application for division of holdings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mithauli Kheri, which was registered as Case Amarjeet and others versus Subash Chander and others. – Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mithauli, Kheri, had passed a preliminary decree about the shares of the tenure holders relying upon the revenue records.

Finding of the court: Partition suit under section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code would remain to be a partition suit under the Code and shall not become a partition suit under the C.P.C. merely because the procedure that has to be followed by the revenue court in deciding the partition suit would be the same as is followed by the civil court under the C.P.C. – An appeal against the decree by the revenue court would also lie under the U.P. Land Revenue Code and Rules made thereunder. – No doubt Rule 109 of the Rules made under the U.P. Revenue Code do employ the words “It shall be registered as a suit and the defendant shall be called upon to file the written statement. – That suit shall then be decided according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908,“ but that would not make a partition suit for division of a holding filed under section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, a suit for division of properties under the Civil Procedure Code. – It cannot be said that an appeal shall lie under Section 97 of the C.P.C. to the first Appellate court mentioned in the C.P.C. – In case of properties other than lands liable to payment of land revenue, the civil court normally passes a preliminary decree which is followed by a final decree, the proceedings between preliminary decree and final decree are analogous to the proceedings before the Collector for the partition of lands amenable to payment of land revenue. – It cannot be disputed that the final decree of a court which allocates specific properties to different shareholders involves the rendering of decision and the passing of a decretal order. – But in the Revenue Code it is the Collector alone who has the jurisdiction with regard to questions involved in the partition of revenue paying lands. – It must be remembered that the powers of revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code are wide enough to examine the legality, propriety and regularity of any order passed in a suit or proceeding by any Subordinate Revenue Court in which no appeal lies. – There are no fetters like those provided in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. – Court must remember that when the Revenue Code was framed the legislature had before it the provisions of Section 96 and 97 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. – Had the Legislature intended that even a preliminary decree in a partition suit may be challenged in a regular first appeal, then it would have provided so either in the main section i.e. Section 207, or at least not created a specific bar under Section 209 to entertaining certain appeals including an appeal against a decree which is of an interim nature. – Court finds that the Appeal was wrongly admitted by the Additional Commissioner, and also because the Additional Commissioners’ order does not give any reason for entertaining the Appeal, the order impugned is set aside.

Result: Writ Petition Allowed