Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.
Shiv Bachan Yadav and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2741 of 2023
Decided On : 27-10-2023
Appeal - Writ Petition - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - The court interpreted the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code regarding the necessity of filing a certified copy of the decree with the memorandum of appeal, affirming the maintainability of the appeal despite procedural defects.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a suit under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which was appealed by the contesting respondents. The petitioners challenged the maintainability of the appeal due to the absence of a certified copy of the decree in the appeal process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal was maintainable under the U.P. Revenue Code, despite the absence of a certified copy of the decree, as the relevant provisions allowed for such an appeal.
Issues: Whether the appeal was maintainable without a certified copy of the decree as required by the U.P. Revenue Code and its rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the U.P. Revenue Code contains express provisions governing appeals, which take precedence over the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the necessity of filing a certified copy of the decree.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manish Dev Singh alongwith Sri V.K. Jaiswal, learned counsels for the respondent Nos. 4 to 22, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep SingSh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 23-Gaon Sabha.
2. The respondent Nos. 25 to 31 are the proforma respondents. As they are the plaintiffs in the Suit in question alongwith the petitioners as such, notice is not necessarily required to be issued to them as their claims are conjoined with the petitioners.
3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the present Writ Petition at the admission stage itself.
4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
(ii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.''
5. The relevant facts leading to the instant Writ Petition, as narrated by the parties are that the petitioners filed a Suit under Section 229-B/176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 before the Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Robertganj, Sonebhadra against the contesting respondents. The said Suit (Ramjatan Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others) was registered as Case No. RST/07803/2019 (Computerised Case No. T-201916660107803) and was decided vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2020.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.10.2020, the contesting respondents preferred an Appeal on 21.10.2020, under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) which was registered as Appeal No. 177 of 2020, Computerised No. C202016000000177 (Ram Lakhan Yadav and others v. Ramjatan Yadav and others).
7. The learned Court of Commissioner, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) vide order dated 26.10.2021 accepted the aforesaid Appeal, issued notices to the opposite parties and summoned the records from the learned Trial Court.
8. Pending the aforesaid Appeal, the contesting respondents also filed a Revision assailing the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Robertganj, Sonebhadra. The said Revision under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 filed before the Board of Revenue at Prayagraj (respondent No. 2) was registered as Revision No. 1651 of 2020.
9. The aforesaid Revision was dismissed vide order dated 11.8.2021 passed by the learned Board of Revenue at Prayagraj (respondent No. 2), on the ground that since the revisionist/petitioners have already availed the remedy of Appeal before the learned Court of Commissioner and as such has exhausted the option of filing the Revision before the learned Board of Revenue. In view of the same the said Revision is not maintainable.
10. The Petitioner then filed a Revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the learned Board of Revenue (respondent No. 2) assailing the aforesaid order dated 26.10.2021 passed by Court of Commissioner, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3), which was registered as Case No. REV/2674/2021/Sonebhadra.
11. By means of the aforesaid Revision, the petitioners challenged the Order dated 26.10.2021 whereby the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) accepted the Appeal No. 177 of 2020 for admission, under S
The U.P. Revenue Code's provisions regarding appeals are self-contained and govern the necessity of filing documents, overriding general procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The right to appeal or revise under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, remains intact for suits filed before the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing that such rights are substant....
The court established that restoration proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are valid despite the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing jurisdictional competence and subs....
Point of law: It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to....
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.
The court ruled that an appeal under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code is subject to revision under Section 210, emphasizing the supervisory role of the Board or Commissioner over subor....
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 ....
The pendency of proceedings under one provision does not bar actions under another; purely legal questions can be heard despite available alternative remedies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and governed by their own procedural provisions, and the general procedural r....
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
