Allahabad High Court
Pratap Singh vs Board Of Revenue At Allahabad & 12 ... on 6 November, 2017
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 07
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 51254 of 2017
Petitioner :- Pratap Singh
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue At Allahabad & 12 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhuveneshwar Prasad,Tarun Gaur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for State-Respondents.
2. By the impugned order dated 25.08.2017, Revision No.889 of 2017 (Pratap Singh vs. Pala Singh and others) filed against the order of S.D.M. Shamli dated 20.04.2017 passed in Case No.D201309720076 under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, has been dismissed.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that a partition suit being aforesaid Case No.D201309720076 (Raj Singh vs. Pal Singh) under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed in the year 2010. The said case was pending as on 11.02.2016 when the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 came into force. Before the S.D.M. Shamli, the petitioner has raised an objection over maintainability of the aforesaid case on the ground that the said partition case is not maintainable, inasmuch as that the U.P. Revenue Code has now holds the field. The objection was rejected by the S.D.M. vide order dated 20.04.2017 on the ground that the case is pending since the year 2010 and as such provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act would be applicable. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed a Revision No.889 of 2017 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 25.08.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his Revision has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the partition suit was instituted in the year 2010, i.e. before coming into force of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, whereas in revision filed against similar order, the Board of Revenue has fixed date.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. This Court confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner with the provisions of Section 231 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and requested him to explain as to how the impugned order passed by the Board, can be said to be illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per provisions of Section 231 of the Code, the impugned order may be correct but the ground of challenge is that the petitioner has been discriminated inasmuch as in another similar revision, date has been fixed while the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed and the case law cited by the petitioner has not been discussed by the Board of Revenue.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance. Section 231 of the U.P. Revenue Code is reproduced below:
"231 Applicability of the Code to pending proceedings. - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Code, all cases pending before the State Government or any Revenue Court immediately before the commencement of this Code, whether in appeal, revision, review or otherwise, shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate law, which would have been applicable to them had this Code not been passed.
(2) All cases pending in any civil court immediately before the commencement of this Code which would under this Code be exclusively triable by a revenue court, shall be disposed of by such civil court according to the law in force prior to the date of such commencement."
8. Section 231(1) is applicable on all cases pending before the State Government or any Revenue Court immediately before the commencement of the Code. Such cases have to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate law, which would have been applicable to them had this Code not been passed. Undisputedly, the aforesaid partition suit under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed before the S.D.M. Shamli in the year 2010. The said partition suit was pending as on the date when the U.P. Revenue Code came into force. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 231 of the Code, the aforesaid suit shall be governed by the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any provision in the Code which expressly provides otherwise. Under the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity either in the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the S.D.M. in the aforesaid case or the order dated 25.08.2017 passed in Revision No.889 of 2017 (Pratap Singh vs. Pala Singh and others).
9. The judgments of this Court in the cases of Shyam Prasad Mishra vs. Vijay Pratap Singh, 2006 (100) RD 42, Buniya vs. Gaon Sabha and others, 1991 RD (H) 30 and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi and others vs. Lala J.R. Education Society and others, 2017 (135) RD 251 and Bhurey vs. Peer Bux and others, 1974 RD (Suppl.) 259 relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, have no application on the facts of the present case inasmuch as in none of the aforesaid cases, the provisions of Section 231 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was under consideration. That apart, controversy involved in those cases were entirely on different set of facts and provisions.
10. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 06.11.2017
NLY
