Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2120

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ.
Charan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 43025 of 2018, 14682 of 2021, 5671 of 2023 and 9440 of 2019
Decided On : 11-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vishal Khandelwal, Dharm Vir Jaiswal, Harsh Vikram, Gaurav Singh and Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh.
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Manu Singh, Arun Kumar Pandey, Mohd. Azam, Neelabh Srivastava, Krishna Kant Singh, Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, Madhav Jain, Mohd. Zaid and Sudhanshu Pandey.

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 substantive and not procedural.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 229B - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 230 and 231 - Legal remedies available under repealed enactments - The court addressed whether appeals or revisions against orders passed in proceedings under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, are governed by the new U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The court found that the right to file a revision under the old Act continues for suits filed prior to the new Code's enactment. (Paras 2, 14, 16)

(B) Legal principles - The right of appeal is substantive and preserved from the date of suit filing, not affected by subsequent enactments unless expressly stated. (Paras 5, 15)

(C) The court emphasized that remedies available at the time of filing a suit remain intact despite the repeal of the earlier law. (Paras 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged a revision order related to a suit filed under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, prior to the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The core issue was whether the new Code affected the maintainability of the revision.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the revision was maintainable under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, as the right to appeal or revise is a substantive right preserved from the date of the suit.

Issues: The main issue was whether the remedies available under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, continued to exist after the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to file a revision under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, remains valid for suits filed before the new Code's enactment, as the right of appeal is substantive and not merely procedural.

Result: The reference was answered affirmatively, allowing the continuation of the revision under the old Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri Vishal Khandelwal, Shri Harsh Vikram, Shri Gaurav Singh and Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the connected writ petitions and Shri Neelabh Srivastava, Shri Sudhanshu Pandey, Shri Mohd. Zaid, learned counsel for the private respondents in all the connected writ petitions, Shri S.N. Srivastava learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. The instant reference to the following effect has been placed before us by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The issue raised in the reference is reproduced herein below for the sake of clarity:

''Whether when Section 231 of the Code specifically states that only such proceedings which were pending before the commencement of the Code would be decided in accordance with provisions of the law under which those proceedings were filed then would an Appeal or Revision against the orders/judgments/decrees which would be passed in those proceedings be governed by the previous enactment i.e. the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or by the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.''

3. In the instant petition, the order under challenge was passed in a revision filed by the applicants against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.2014 passed in a suit filed under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950) and on specific query by the Court from the petitioners' counsel about the maintainability of the revision on in contrast to the remedy of appeal available under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 wherein a party aggrieved by the final decree passed in any suit specified in Column-II of the 3rd-Schedule appended with the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 could have filed, the learned counsel had taken recourse to the provisions of Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

4. Therefore, the learned Single Judge referred the matter for reference to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court and that is how the instant reference petition is placed before this Court.

5. In response to the issue raised in reference, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that (i) since there is already a judgement of this Court passed in Anand Kumar Singh and another v. State of U.P. Thru. Seyc. Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. and others, 2017(6) ADJ 728 (DB) laying down the law that after the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which enforced w.e.f. 11.2.2016, the remedy as was available in the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act shall continue to remain in force for the petitioners as the suit was filed prior to 11.2.2016 and the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 would be applicable only on the suits filed post 11.2.2016, (ii) as per the judgement and order dated 20.4.2017 passed in Anand Kumar Singh and another case (supra), a Revision shall be maintainable in the instant case as per the provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, (iii) the Supreme Court in Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and others, AIR 1957 SC 540, has held that the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity and ought to be regarded as one legal proceedings. The institutions of the suit carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit, and (iv) such legal remedy of appeal as was available to a litigant on the date of the filing of the suit, in fact, is a substantive right and right to file an appeal or revision is not a mere matter of procedure but it is a right, which accrues to a litigant from the date when the lis commenced. Even though that right could be exercised when an adverse judgement would be pronounced, the law with regard to the filing of appeal or revision shall be governed by the law prevailing on the date of the institution of the su