The main legal point established in the judgment is that the first appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 cannot be filed against an order passed under Section 24, and the appeal can only be filed under Section 24(4) before the Commissioner.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Brijendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri J.B.S. Rathour, learned counsel for the respondent no.3/ caveator and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.7.

2. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that this petition against the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the appellate authority is not maintainable because the petitioner has a remedy of revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 (here-in-after referred as the Code-2006). He relies on judgment and order dated 12.05.2022 passed in Writ-C No.25616 of 2021; Jhinka Devi Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ-B No.1072 of 2023 under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in view of the office report, the petitioner had got dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, subsequently while preparing the petition he found that the petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being against the revenue authority under the Code-2006 in view of the judgment and order dated 03.05.2022 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, the leading of which is Writ-B No.229 of 2023; Dinesh Chandra @ Dinesh Chandra Tiwari and Others, therefore the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further in regard to the preliminary objection submits that the petitioner had filed the first appeal under Section 207 read with Section 24 (4) of the Code-2006 and the first appeal against the order passed under Section 24 is maintainable under Section 207. It is also provided in the 3rd schedule that against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, under Section 24 in regard to boundary and boundary marks, the first appeal is maintainable as provided in column-4. Therefore, the appeal was rightly filed in accordance with law, which has wrongly and illegally been dismissed on the ground that it has been filed in a wrong provision with liberty to the petitioner to file under the correct provision. Therefore, since only the question of law, as to whether the first appeal under Section 207 against an order passed under section 24 of code-2006 is maintainable or not, is involved, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, therefore instead of relegating to the alternative remedy of revision, this issue may be decided by this Court.

5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel without disputing the maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed in accordance with law because the remedy of appeal is provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of Code-2006, therefore the first appeal under Section 207 is not provided. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 also argued the same.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records.

7. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Dinesh Chandra @ Dinesh Chandra Tiwari and Others (Supra) has held that the orders being passed by the revenue authority or consolidation authority are not the orders passed by judicial authority/ Civil Courts, therefore, rejected the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraph 27 is extracted here-in-below:-

"27. Accordingly, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the judgments so placed, which have been considered herein above, I am of the considered opinion that the orders being passed by the revenue authority or consolidation authority are not the orders being passed by judicial authority/Civil Courts, therefore, the