Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Ved Prakash And Others – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP And Others – Respondent
Writ C No.17513 of 2024
Decided on : 26-09-2024
(A) UP Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 116 and 207 - Appeal against orders regarding division of holdings - Petitioners challenged ex parte order for division of land, claiming lack of opportunity to present their case - Court emphasized the necessity for appellate courts to address all grounds raised in appeals and provide reasoned judgments. (Paras 10, 22, 24, 25)
(B) Appellate Procedure - The appellate court must apply its mind to the facts and issues raised, ensuring a well-reasoned decision that reflects a conscious application of judicial principles. (Paras 17, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, co-sharers of land, contested an ex parte order for division of holdings, claiming it was unsustainable due to lack of opportunity to present their case. (Paras 4, 8)
Findings of Court:
The appellate order was set aside for failing to address the grounds raised in the appeal, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 25, 30)
Issues: The main issues included whether the appellate authority properly considered the grounds raised in the appeal and the necessity for a reasoned judgment. (Paras 22, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that appellate courts must provide reasoned judgments addressing all issues raised, ensuring justice is served. (Paras 20, 22)
Result: Petition allowed; matter remitted for fresh order.
JUDGMENT :
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents and Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by respondent no.2, Additional Commissioner (Administration), Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Case No.2418 of 2023 (Computerized Case No.C202314000002481, Jay Prakash Vs. Om Prakash), under Section 207 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006[the Revenue Code], and also the earlier order dated 14.11.2023 passed by respondent no.3, SubDivisional Officer, Tehsil Pindra, District Varanasi, in Case No.14091 of 2021 (Computerized Case No.T202114700214091, Om Prakash Vs. Ved Prakash), under Section 116 of the Revenue Code.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are as follows.
4. The petitioners claim to be cosharers of the respondent no.4 in land bearing arazi nos.466, 472, 475 and 459 situate at the village in question. A suit bearing Case No.861 of 2022 (Om Prakash Singh Vs. Ved Prakash and others), under Section 116 of the Code, was instituted, and on 16.02.2023, an order was passed for making a preliminary decree. The aforesaid order is stated to have been passed ex parte against the petitioners herein.
5. An application seeking recall of the aforesaid order, filed by the petitioners was dismissed by an order dated 14.11.2023, and in terms of the said order, the kurra report submitted by the Lekhpal, was confirmed and a direction was issued for making final decree.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred an appeal, registered as Case No.2418 of 2023, which has been dismissed by the respondent no.2 by an order dated 30.01.2024.
7. It is the aforesaid order dated 30.01.2024 passed by respondent no.2, against which the present writ petition has been preferred.
8. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 16.02.2023, passed in proceedings under Section 116, of which recall had been sought, was ex parte, and that, accordingly, the said order, in terms of which the kurra report had been accepted, was legally unsustainable.
9. It has been submitted that despite the aforesaid grounds having been taken before the respondent no.2, an order has been passed without adverting to the grounds raised in the memo of appeal.
10. Section 116 of the Revenue Code relates to suits for division of holdings, and as per the provisions contained therein, a bhumidhar may sue for the division of the holding of which he is a cosharer.
11. Section 117 of the Revenue Code refers to the duty of the court in suits for division of holding, and it provides that the Court of Assistant Collector shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.
12. For ease of reference, the aforementioned statutory provisions contained in Sections 116 and 117 of the Revenue Code, are being extracted below:
(2) In every such suit, the Court may also divide the trees, wells and other improvements existing on such holding but where such division is not possible, the trees, wells and other improvements aforesaid and valuation thereof shall be divided and adjusted in the manner prescribed.
(3) One suit may be instituted for the division of more holdings than one where all the parties to the suit other than the Gram Panchayat are, jointly interested in each of the holdings.
(4) to every suit under this section, the Gram Panchayat concerned shall be made a party.
117. Duty of Court in suits for division of holding.—(1) In every suit for division of holding under section 116 the Court of Assistant Collector shall
(a) follow such procedure as may be prescribed;
(b) apportion the land revenue payable in respect of each such division.
(2) A division of holding referred to in section 116 shall
Appellate courts must provide reasoned judgments addressing all grounds raised in appeals to ensure justice and proper application of law.
The preliminary decree under the U.P. Revenue Code is a final order determining the rights of parties, making it appealable despite being labeled interlocutory.
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 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....
A revision under Section 210 of the UP Revenue Code is not maintainable unless the impugned order constitutes a 'suit or proceeding decided'.
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 ....
Objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and failure to do so results in waiver; appeals under the UP Revenue Code must follow the prescribed procedures, and jurisdictio....
A partition suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code is not maintainable if the petitioner is the sole recorded owner of the land.
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....
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.
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
