An order passed by the Commissioner in an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is final in the sense that there is no further appeal there against, would be subject to the revisional powers of the Board to be exercised under Section 210 of the Code.

JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Piyush Shukla appearing along with Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Sri J.P.N.Raj, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Surya Bhan Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Sri Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner Basti, Division Basti/respondent no. 2 in an appeal filed under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 [the Code] being Appeal No. 00631/2020 and the earlier order dated 26.10.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti/respondent no. 3 in Case No. 06482/2019 under Section 24 of the Code whereby the application of the respondent no. 5 under Section 24 of the Code has been allowed.

3. An objection with regard to the entertain ability of the writ petition was raised on behalf of the State respondents by pointing out that the order passed in appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code is subject to the remedy of revision under Section 210 of the Code.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has sought to refute the aforesaid contention by submitting that the remedy of revision under Section 210 of the Code is available only in a situation where no appeal lies and in the instant case since the petitioner is seeking to assail an order passed in appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 24, the remedy of revision would not be available.

5. The question which thus falls for consideration in the present case is as to whether an order passed in an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code, would be subject to a revision under Section 210 of the Code,

6. Counsel for the parties have referred to the relevant statutory provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and the amendments made to the Code in terms of U.P. Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2016 [U.P. Act No. 4 of 2016] and the U.P. Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2019 [U.P. Act No. 7 of 2019]. For ease of reference the relevant statutory provisions under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 together with their legislative history, would be required to be adverted to.

7. The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Bill, 2006 was passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and assented to by the President on 29 November, 2012 and published in the U.P. Gazette (Extra.), Part I, Section (ka) on 12 December 2012, vide Vishay Anubhag-1-Noti. No. 1044 (2) 179-v-12-1 (ka) 33/2006, dated 12 December, 2012 as U.P. Act No. 8 of 2012. Vide Noti. No. 1879/1-1-2015-15(1)/1998-19T.C.III dated 18 December 2015, Sections 1, 4-19, 233 and 234 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (U.P. Act No. 8 of 2012) came into force on 18 December, 2015 and the remaining provisions of the said Act came into force on 11 February 2016.

8. The provisions with regard to settlement of boundary disputes are contained under Section 24 of the Code. Section 24 of the Code, as it originally stood, is being extracted below :-

"24. Disputes regarding boundaries.-(1) The Sub-Divisional Officer may, on his own motion or on an application made in this behalf by a person interested, decide, by summary inquiry, any dispute regarding boundaries on the basis of existing survey maps or, where they have been revised in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, on the basis of such maps, but if this is not possible, the boundaries shall be fixed on the basis of actual possession.

(2) If in the course of an inquiry into a dispute under sub-section (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which party