Allahabad High Court
Balmiki Pandey And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue ... on 3 April, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2505 of 2023
Petitioner :- Balmiki Pandey And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vashu Deo Mishra,S.K. Mishra Nagraha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Pradeep Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri Vashu Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.5/ Gram Panchayat concerned, Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, Advocate along with Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate, who have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 6, which is taken on record, and Sri Manoj Kumar Nishad, Advocate, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent Nos. 8 & 9, which is taken on record.
In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to rest of the private respondents is hereby dispensed with. They are also at liberty to file an appropriate application for recall of this order, if they are aggrieved by it.
By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Revision filed under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") registered as Case No. 1478 of 2022, Computerized Case No. C202208000001478 (Balmiki Pandey And Others vs. Prem Narayan And Others), whereby, the respondent No. 3 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 17.10.2022 passed on an application/objection preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Case No. 7190 of 2022, Computerized Case No. T2022208300607190 (Prem Narayan Pandey vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others), by which, the application/objection filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 was finally disposed of amounting to rejection of same. The order dated 17.10.2022 is also under challenge in this petition.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of language couched under Section 210 of the Code of 2006, the revision challenging the order dated 17.10.2022, whereby, an application/objection was finally disposed of amounting to rejection of the same was maintainable. However, the Revisional Authority/respondent No. 3/Additional Commissioner (Administration)-II, Devi Patan Region, Gonda without taking note of the relevant provisions i.e. Section 210 of the Code of 2006 and the law on the issue, rejected the revision after observing that the order dated 17.10.2022 is an interlocutory order, as such, the revision is not maintainable.
Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 very fairly stated that the revision challenging the order dated 17.10.2022 was maintainable. Other counsel representing the side opposite also reiterated that the revision was maintainable.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court finds that it appropriate to reproduce Section 210 of the Code of 2006, which is as under:-
"210 Power to call for the records. -(1) The Board or the Commissioner may call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any sub-ordinate Revenue Court in which no appeal lies, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding; and if such subordinate Court appears to have-
(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction of vested; or
(c) acted in the exercise of such jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity;
the Board, or the Commissioner, as the case may be, may pass such order in the case as it or he thinks fit.
(2) If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board or to the Commissioner, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
Explanation. - For the removal of doubt it is, hereby, declared that when an application under this section has been moved either to the Board or to the Commissioner, the application shall not be permitted to be withdrawn for the purpose of filing the application against the same order to the other of them.
(3) No application under this section shall be entertained after the expiry of a period of sixty days from the date of the order sought to be revised or from the date of commencement of this Code, whichever is later."
A perusal of above quoted provision shows that it contains expression "legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding". Expression "legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding" was also there in erstwhile provision i.e. Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") and after considering the expression "legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding" under Section 219 of the Act of 1901, this Court in the judgment dated 15.02.2023 passed in Writ- B No. 778 of 2022 (Jagdish Prasad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others) observed as under:-
"Moreover the expression "legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding held" in Section 219 of the Act of 1901, empowers the revisional authority to consider the legality or propriety of an order passed by the revenue court subordinate to him if the same is allowed to stand, results in failure of justice or causes irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. Further, if an order passed by subordinate revenue court on any application is allowed to stand affecting the rights of the parties, it would cause failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made, therefore, if the said condition is present, the revision against any order passed by the subordinate revenue court would be maintainable under Section 219 of the Act of 1901. As per Section 219 of the Act of 1901, if the subordinate revenue court exceeds its jurisdiction, or exercise its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the revision would be maintainable."
Admittedly, in the Code of 2006, no appeal lies challenging the order rejecting an application/objection filed under Order 7 Rule 11. Thus, considering the observations of this Court, quoted above, in the judgment dated 15.02.2023 as also the fact that to challenge the order rejecting an application/objection preferred under Order 7 Rule 11, the remedy of appeal is not available in the Code of 2006, this Court is of the view that the revision was maintainable against the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the Authority concerned, as such, the order impugned dated 22.12.2022 is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, the order dated 22.12.2022 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Revisional Authority to decide the Revision afresh on merits after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation, as early as possible, say within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard without giving unnecessary adjournments to either party in order to conclude the proceedings within the stipulated time.
This petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.
Order Date :- 3.4.2023
Arun/-
