Revision Against Interlocutory Order Not Maintainable Under UPZALR Act: Allahabad High Court - 2025-11-25

Allahabad High Court Quashes Revisional Order, Rules Revision Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory Orders

Allahabad, India – In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of revisional jurisdiction, the Allahabad High Court has held that a revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order passed in a declaratory suit under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (UPZALR) Act. Justice Irshad Ali quashed an order by the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, terming it "wholly without jurisdiction" and "per se illegal."

Background of the Dispute

The case, Sadhu Saran Chaubey vs. Addl. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal And 4 Ors. , originated from a property dispute involving a series of wills executed by the deceased Ram Abhilakh. The petitioner, Sadhu Saran Chaubey, claimed rights to the property based on the third and final will. However, respondent No. 5, Bajrang Bahadur, who was the beneficiary of an earlier, allegedly cancelled will, managed to get his name mutated in the revenue records through an ex-parte order.

In response, Mr. Chaubey filed a declaratory suit under Section 229-B of the UPZALR Act. The Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Bahraich, granted an interim injunction on April 20, 2002, directing that the status quo be maintained and prohibiting any transfer of the disputed land.

The respondent challenged this interim status quo order by filing a revision under Section 333 of the Act before the Additional Commissioner. On May 2, 2002, the revisional court entertained the plea and stayed the SDO's order, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition before the High Court.

Arguments in Court

• Petitioner's Counsel: Sri G.C. Verma, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, argued that the SDO's order was purely interlocutory in nature. He contended that a revision is only maintainable against a "suit or proceeding decided," not against a temporary procedural order. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The petitioner cited the precedent set in Mohd Muslim & others Vs. State of U.P. & others to support this claim.

• Respondent's Counsel: Sri R.P. Dwivedi, representing respondent No. 5, countered that a writ petition should not be entertained against an interim order passed in a revision, arguing that the petition was misconceived and should be dismissed.

Court's Analysis and Precedent

Justice Irshad Ali, after examining the records and hearing the arguments, sided with the petitioner. The Court unequivocally identified the SDO's order from April 20, 2002, as an interlocutory order, as it did not finally decide the rights of the parties on the interim injunction application.

The judgment heavily relied on the principles established in the Mohd Muslim case, quoting its finding that for a revision to be entertainable, the order must relate to a 'suit or proceeding decided.'

> The Court observed, "On its perusal, it is apparent that against an interlocutory order passed in an interim injunction application, revision is not maintainable, therefore, the order appears to be per se illegal and is liable to be set aside."

The Court also criticized the revisional court's order for being unreasoned. Addressing the respondent's objection, Justice Ali firmly stated that a writ petition is "always maintainable" against an order passed "wholly without jurisdiction."

Final Verdict and Implications

Finding that the Additional Commissioner had wrongly assumed jurisdiction, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated May 2, 2002.

This decision reinforces a crucial procedural safeguard in land revenue litigation, preventing the misuse of revisional proceedings to challenge every temporary order. It clarifies that interim orders, which do not finally determine the rights of the parties, cannot be the subject of a revision, thereby streamlining the legal process and discouraging dilatory tactics.