The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutory scope and purpose of Section 333 of the Act, 1950 is to be availed only in those situations where no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred. The court emphasized that the power of revision under Section 333 cannot be treated as synonymous to the power of appeal, especially when the statute provides the forum of second appeal.

JUDGMENT :

ABDUL MOIN, J.

1. Heard Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dharm Raj Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Abhinav Narain Trivedi, learned Chief Standing counsel assisted by Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 4 to 12 and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 14.

2. Instant petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 21.04.2022, contained in Annexure No. 1, passed by the Opposite Party No. 1, judgment and order dated 05.07.2018/31.08.2020, contained in Annexure No. 2, passed by the Opposite Party no. 2 and judgment and order dated 25.05.1988, contained in Annexure No. 3, passed by the Opposite Party No. 3 with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to restrain the private respondents from creating any third party right or changing the nature of land in dispute without reference to the judgments and orders, contained in Annexure Nos. 1 to 3 impugned in the petition, with all consequential benefits and allow the relief claimed in the suit in favour of the petitioner.

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1950”) was filed by the father of the petitioners no. 1 & 2 and father-in-law of the petitioner no. 3. The said suit was dismissed vide order dated 25.05.1988. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed a first appeal under the provisions of Section 331 (3) of the Act, 1950 which was dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2018 as corrected on 31.08.2020. Still being aggrieved, the petitioners filed a Revision No. 119 of 2021 under Section 333 of the Act, 1950 which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.04.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition and hence the writ petition.

4. A preliminary objection was raised by Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 4 to 12 that taking into consideration the specific provision of Section 331 (4) of the Act, 1950, the petitioners ought to have filed a second appeal and the revision itself was not maintainable under Section 333 of the Act, 1950. The same was opposed by the learned Senior Advocate by contending that there is no specific bar under Section 333 of the Act, 1950 per which the revision would not be maintainable.

5. Considering the same, this Court vide order dated 05.07.2022 had passed an order framing a question which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:

“Supplementary affidavit filed today be kept on record. Heard Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Aslam and Sri Dharam Raj Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State, Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, Advocate who files his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents no. 5 to 12.

The question which needs to be gone into at the first instance is as to whether after dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner vide order dated 05.07.2018/31.08.2020 which was filed by the petitioners under the provisions of Section 331 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”), the petitioner correctly filed a revision before the Board of Revenue under the provisions of Section 333 of the Act, 1950 or he should have filed a second appeal under the provisions of Act, 1950.

All the learned counsels would come prepared with this question tomorrow i.e. 06.07.2022.

Put up this case tomorrow i.e. 06.0