Recently, the Allahabad High Court set aside a revisional order passed against an interlocutory injunction in a land dispute, holding that a revision filed against an interim order in proceedings under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is not maintainable in law. The Court observed that the revisional authority had acted wholly without jurisdiction and noted that the impugned order lacked reasons, making it legally unsustainable.
Brief Facts:
The dispute stemmed from multiple conflicting Wills executed by Ram Abhilakh. His first Will was made in favour of a relative but cancelled in the same year. He later executed a second Will in favour of another family member, and eventually a third and final Will in favour of the petitioner. After his death, one of the earlier beneficiaries allegedly concealed the subsequent Will and secured an ex parte mutation order from the Tehsildar.
The petitioner challenged this mutation by filing a declaratory suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer and sought interim protection over the property. The SDO directed that the land should not be transferred and ordered status quo. Soon after, the earlier beneficiary initiated revision proceedings before the Additional Commissioner, who stayed the SDO’s interim order.
Contentions:
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the SDO’s order was purely interlocutory, and therefore a revision under the Act was not maintainable. It was submitted that the revisional court acted entirely without jurisdiction, as the interim order had not decided the rights of the parties. The petitioner further contended that the impugned revisional order was unreasoned and thus invalid in the eyes of law. Reliance was placed on paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 of the judgment in Mohd. Muslim & Others v. State of U.P., where the Court held that revisions do not lie against interlocutory orders.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 5 submitted that a writ petition against an interim order passed in revision was not maintainable and therefore the petition deserved to be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court examined the interim order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and held that it was clearly an interlocutory order, as no rights of the parties had been finally adjudicated. Therefore, a revision against such an order could not be entertained.
Further, the Court noted that the revisional authority failed to assign reasons while staying the SDO’s order, rendering the order unsustainable. Referring to the judgment in Mohd. Muslim, the Court quoted the following essential passage, “The order against which the revision has been entertained and also allowed, cannot be said to be an order relating to a ‘suit or proceeding decided’… The condition precedent for the entertainability of a revision… having thus not been fulfilled… the order… is held to be legally unsustainable.”
The Court held that this principle applied squarely to the present matter. It observed that since the SDO’s order was interlocutory, the revisional court had no jurisdiction to interfere. It further emphasized that a writ petition challenging an order passed wholly without jurisdiction is always maintainable.
The decision of the Court:
Holding that the revisional authority had exceeded its jurisdiction, the Court quashed the order dated 2.5.2002. It concluded that the revision itself was not maintainable against an interlocutory order, and the impugned order, being unreasoned and without legal foundation, could not be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and no order was made as to costs.
Case Title: Sadhu Saran Chaubey Vs. Addl. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal and Ors.
Case No.: Writ - C No. - 1003822 of 2002
Coram: Justice Irshad Ali
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. N.A. Siddiqui, Abha Srivastava, Girish Chandra Verma
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. C.S.C., R. P. Dwivedi, R.N. Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Singh
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
