IMPORTANT POINT
A revision under Section 210 of the UP Revenue Code is not maintainable unless the impugned order constitutes a 'suit or proceeding decided'.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. On an oral prayer, counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the array of parties.

2. Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Surendra Kumar Chaubey holding brief of Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh Parmar, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6.

3. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 20.01.2024 passed by respondent no. 2, Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj in Revision No. 1369 of 2022 (Computer Case No. C202202000001369), Mohd. Salim and another Vs. Mohd. Muslim and others, under Section 210 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 [the Revenue Code].

4. The factual matrix of the case, as laid down in the writ petition, is as follows.

5. The petitioners herein claim to be tenure holders of land bearing arazi no. 410 situate at Village Beli Kachhar, Phaphamau, Prayagraj and that their names are duly recorded in the revenue records.

6. It is stated that in regard to the land in question there have been litigations between the petitioners and the private respondents, in the past. Reference has been made to a civil suit being Original Suit No. 374 of 2020, instituted by the private respondents, which is said to be pending. It is stated that the application for interim injunction in the aforesaid suit has been rejected.

7. It has been asserted that concealing the fact of pendency of the aforesaid civil suit, the petitioners instituted a declaratory suit under Section 144 of the Revenue Code, registered as Case No. T202002030304753 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Soraon, Prayagraj.

8. An application for injunction under Section 146 was also moved in the aforesaid suit.

9. Upon the aforesaid application, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is said to have passed an ex parte order of status quo dated 17.10.2022, whereupon detailed objections were filed by the petitioners herein, and the earlier order granting status quo was thereafter withdrawn/recalled by means of an order dated 1.11.2022.

10. The aforesaid order, recalling the earlier order, was assailed in a revision filed by the private respondents, before the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj under Section 210 of the Revenue Code, which has been allowed by means of an order dated 20.01.2024, which is now being assailed by means of the present petition.

11. The principal ground on which the order dated 20.01.2024 passed by respondent no. 2, is sought to be challenged is by seeking to raise a contention that the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by respondent no. 7 in the declaratory suit, against which the revision had been filed, did not finally dispose the application for injunction, and as such a revision would not lie against the said order. Accordingly, it is contended the order passed by the revisional court is without jurisdiction and is legally unsustainable.

12. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Paltoo Ram Vs. State of UP and others, 2023 AHC 166655 and Riyasat Ali Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2022 AHC 48548.

13. Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has refuted the aforesaid submissions by contending that in terms of the order dated 01.11.2022, the interim order granted earlier on 17.10.2022 having been withdrawn, it cannot be said that the revision would not be maintainable against the said order.

14. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision in Rishi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ (C) No. 36341 of 2015 to support his submissions.

15. Rival contentions now fall for consideration.

16. The provision with regard to declaratory suits finds place under Chapter IX of the Revenue Code. Section 144 is with regard to declaratory suits by the tenure holders and the same reads as follows:

“144. Declaratory suits by tenure holders:

(1) Any person claiming to be a bhumidhar