Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Mahendra Singh And Others - Petitioner
Vs.
Board Of Revenue U.P. And Others - Respondent
WRIT - B No. - 368 of 2022
Decided On : 31-05-2022
Revenue Code - Quashing of order under Section 144 and 210 - Summary of Acts and Sections: U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 [Revenue Code], U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 144 (Declaratory suits by tenure holders) and Section 146 (Provision for injunction) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and their applicability to the case. The court also referred to the corresponding provisions under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision on the appealability of the order rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Section 146.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash orders related to the allotment of land and interference with their possession. They claimed that their names were wrongly recorded, leading to legal proceedings and subsequent allotment of the land to other parties. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration under Section 144 of the Revenue Code and sought temporary injunction against the respondents under Section 146. The trial court rejected the application for temporary injunction, which was also dismissed in a revision before the Board of Revenue. The petitioners then filed a writ petition seeking to quash the orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Section 146 was appealable under Section 207 of the Revenue Code. It also concluded that the order was not revisable under Section 210. The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy of an appeal against the rejection of their application for temporary injunction.
Issues: The issues involved the appealability and revisability of the order rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Section 146 of the Revenue Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 146 and its applicability to the case. The court also considered the provisions of Section 207 and Section 210 in determining the appealability and revisability of the order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were allowed to pursue the statutory remedy of an appeal against the rejection of their application for temporary injunction.
JUDGMENT :
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Harsh Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Surya Bhan Singh and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the court of Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Moradabad in Case No. 04080 of 2018, Computerized Case No. T201813540104080 (Mahendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.) in proceedings under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 [Revenue Code ] and the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad in Case No. Rev/2396/2021/Moradabad, Computerized Case No. AL20211354002396 (Mahendra Singh and others Vs. Smt.Sharda Devi and others) in proceedings under Section 210 of the Revenue Code. A further direction is sought to the private respondent nos. 3 to 8 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners on land bearing Gata No. 251Aa situate at Bhaypur Tehsil and District Moradabad.
3. The case as set up in the writ petition is that the land bearing Gata No. 521 Ka area 3.2380 acre situate at village Bhaypur Tehsil and District Moradabad was allotted to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners; however due to mistake of revenue authorities, their names were wrongly recorded as class III tenure holder and treating them to be asami, proceedings under Rule 176-A (2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 19522 were initiated and an ex-parte order dated 07.03.2003 was passed directing their names to be expunged from the revenue records. The land in question was thereafter allotted to the respondent nos. 3 to 8. Upon an application filed by the petitioners, the aforestated order was recalled by an order dated 04.12.2003 and the proceedings were thereafter dropped with the passing of an order dated 23.03.2006 under Rule 176-A (2). The order dated 23.03.2006 was put to challenge by the subsequent allottees as also the State of U.P. by filing a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Moradabad and in terms of an order dated 31.03.2010, the revisions were allowed and the order dated 23.03.2006 was set aside. The earlier order dated 07.03.2003, whereby the names of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners had been expunged, was affirmed. The petitioners thereafter preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue being Revision No. 13 of 2010-2011, which is stated to be pending.
4. It is further stated that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners died in the meantime and the petitioners thereafter instituted a suit for declaration under Section 144 of the Revenue Code and also moved an application seeking temporary injunction against the respondents under Section 146 of the Revenue Code. The aforestated application seeking temporary injunction was 2 UPZA & LR Rules rejected by the trial court by means of an order dated 23.09.2021, which was subjected to challenge in a revision being Revision No. 2396 of 2021 before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed at the stage of admission. Aggrieved against the aforestated order, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made his submissions as under :-
5.2 Section 209 creates a bar in respect of certain appeals and in terms of clause (d) thereof, an appeal is barred against
The main legal point established in the judgment is the appealability of an order rejecting an application for temporary injunction under Section 146 of the Revenue Code, and its non-revisability und....
A revision under Section 210 of the UP Revenue Code is not maintainable unless the impugned order constitutes a 'suit or proceeding decided'.
An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be disposed of before trial; failure constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting revision.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit for injunction was not barred by the provisions of Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue ....
The pendency of proceedings under one provision does not bar actions under another; purely legal questions can be heard despite available alternative remedies.
Where khatedari rights are yet to be determined/declared, a party has to first approach Revenue Courts.
The court ruled that an ex parte order requires a recall application to be maintainable, emphasizing the need for parties to be heard before any interim orders are issued.
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
