2023 Supreme(All) 1278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Reeta Devi – Petitioner
Versus
The Board of Revenue U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) Nos. 695, 951 of 2023
Decided On : 19-10-2023

The right to avail the remedy of revision under Section 333 of the Act of 1950 survives the repeal of the Act of 1950 and, therefore, the revision is maintainable.

Headnote:

REVENUE - U.P. REVENUE CODE, 2006 (CODE OF 2006) - SECTION 231 - APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF CODE OF 2006 AND RULES OF 2016 IN THE CASE INSTITUTED AND PENDING PRIOR TO COMING INTO FORCE OF THE CODE OF 2006 - REVISION - MAINTAINABILITY - REPEAL OF ACT - EFFECT - SAVING CLAUSE - INTERPRETATION - RIGHT TO AVAIL REMEDY OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 333 OF U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 (ACT OF 1950) - SURVIVES THE REPEAL OF ACT OF 1950 - REVISION IS MAINTAINABLE.

Fact of the Case:

A case registered as Case No. 01 of 2014 (Smt. Basmati vs. Harikesh), instituted under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950, was decided on 01.05.2015. Thereafter, an application for restoration dated 30.06.2015 was preferred by Smt. Basmati Devi. This application was allowed vide order dated 12.07.2018 and the above indicated Case No. 01 of 2014, instituted under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950, was restored to its original number. During the pendency of the aforesaid case, Smt. Basmati Devi, on whose application the case was restored to its original number, expired on 06.02.2019. After the death of Basmati Devi, the sons of Basmati preferred an application dated 06.02.2019 for withdrawal of application dated 30.06.2015, which itself was allowed vide order dated 12.07.2018 and the case was restored to its original number. The application dated 06.02.2019 seeking permission to withdraw the application dated 30.06.2015 was thereafter allowed, as appears from the order dated 22.09.2020, impugned in Writ (B) No. 695 of 2023. From the order dated 22.09.2020, it further reveals that during the pendency of the case, an application for impleadment was rejected vide order dated 07.08.2019 and the same was assailed by way of revision registered as Case No. REV/271/2020, Computer Case No. R2020142900271, (Usha Singh vs. Surendra) before the Board of Revenue and at the time of passing of order dated 22.09.2020, the same was pending consideration. From the impugned order dated 22.09.2020 passed on application dated 06.02.2019, it further reveals that the final order dated 01.05.2015 and the decree dated 30.05.2015 were restored despite the fact that the final order dated 01.05.2015 itself was set aside/recalled vide order dated 12.07.2018. It transpires from the record that challenging the order dated 22.09.2020, the petitioner preferred the revision before the opposite party No. 1-Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow registered as Case No. REV/1709/2020.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the provisions of the Code of 2006 and the Rules of 2016 are not applicable to the case in issue, which was instituted and pending prior to the coming into force of the Code of 2006. The Court further held that the right to avail the remedy of revision under Section 333 of the Act of 1950 survives the repeal of the Act of 1950 and, therefore, the revision is maintainable.

Issues: Whether the provisions of the Code of 2006 and the Rules of 2016 are applicable to the case in issue, which was instituted and pending prior to the coming into force of the Code of 2006.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The provisions of Section 231 of the Code of 2006, which provides that all cases pending before the State Government or any revenue Court immediately before the commencement of the Code of 2006, whether in appeal, revision, review or otherwise, shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate law, which would have been applicable to them had the Code of 2006 not been passed. * The judgment of the Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, MANU/UP/1648/2017, which held that despite the repeal of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the remedy of revision in the Act of 1901 would be available. * The judgment of the Supreme Court in Santu vs. State of U.P. and Others, MANU/UP/3660/2019, which held that the provisions of the Code of 2006 are not attracted to a case instituted under Section 229B of the Act of 1950, in view of Section 231 of the Code itself.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the matter back to the Board of Revenue, Lucknow, U.P. to consider and decide the revisions, as per law, expeditiously.