Dinesh Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15623 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34761
 
Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4011 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Dinesh Singh And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue Deptt.) Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Chauhan,Manish Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Shri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Tej Bali Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

In view of the proposed order, notices to opposite party nos.5 to 11 are hereby dispensed with.

By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed following main relief:-

"i. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 23.01.2023 passed by opposite party No.2 in Revision No.1613/2022 Computerized case No.C202204000001613 Ramesh Singh and others Vs Balakram and others, and order dated 07.09.2022 passed by opposite party no.3 in appeal No. 6434/2017 Computerized case No.T2017041248056434 Balakram and others Versus Jawahir and others as contained in Annexure no.1 & 10 to this writ petition."

As per learned counsel for the petitioners, the subject matter of the issue is relating to Gata No. 289/0.556 hectare, Gata No. 289 Aa/0.470 hectare and Gata No. 289 Ba/2-4-0 situated at Village Madarpur Bahadur Singh, Pargana- Siddhaur, Tehsil- Haidargarh, District- Barabanki. The original tenure holder of the aforesaid Gata numbers was Jagdish son of Ramsudh.

In the lifetime Jagdish took a loan from the Land Development Bank Branch Haidargarh, District-Barabanki but he failed to repay the aforesaid loan, so tehsil authorities after fulfilling the due formalities auctioned the land Gata No.289-Ba and that land Gata No.289-Ba was purchased by the father of the opposite party nos. 5 to 7, namely, Rameswar. After the death of Jagdish S/o Ramsudh, the Gata No. 289/0.566 hectare situated at Village Madarpur Bahadur Singh, Pargana- Siddhaur, Tehsil- Haidargarh, District- Barabanki was recorded in the name of his legal heirs/sons namely Surya Prasad, Nand Kumar and Yasho Nandan sons of Jagdish and Nand Kishor, Ram Saroj, Ram Kumar and Yashwant sons of Puttu Lal son of Jagdish through PA-11. Nand Kishor, Ram Saroj, Ram Kumar and Yashwant sons of Puttu Lal had executed a Sale deed of his share i.e. 0.1112 hectare (1/5 of area 0.566 hectare of Gata No. 289). On the basis of Sale deed dated 18.09.2013, petitioners filed the mutation case bearing No.1039/178 (Jawahir & others Versus Nand Kishore and others) under Section 34/35 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before opposite party no.4. Opposite party nos. 5 to 7 filed their objection stating there in that their father Rameshwar purchased the Land Gata No. 289-Ba through auction, so the mutation order may not be passed in favor of petitioners. After hearing both the parties, opposite party no.4 passed the mutation order in favor of petitioners on 10.11.2017 on the basis of the Sale deed dated 18.09.2013. Being aggrieved with the order dated 10.11.2017, opposite party nos. 5 to 7 preferred an appeal before the opposite party no.3. Opposite party no. 3 vide its order dated 07.09.2022 remanded the case to the opposite party no.4 in a cursory manner although the sufficient evidences were available before the Court of opposite party no.3. It is relevant to point-out here that opposite party no.3 did not consider that all the evidence were available on the record and petitioners purchased the land Gata No.289 and claim of the opposite party nos. 5 to 7 was on Gata No.289-Ba which was purchased by their father Rameshwar even then opposite party no.3 ignored this fact and remand the matter to the opposite party no.4 for the disposal of the case while the sufficient evidences were available on record. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2022, petitioners preferred the Revision before opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.2 without summoning the record from the court below and without considering the legal aspects as well as the facts produced by the petitioners dismissed the Revision preferred by the petitioners on the ground of maintainability on 23.01.2023.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned revisional order dated 23.01.2023 on the ground that the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 07.09.2022 setting aside the order of the Tehsildar dated 10.11.2017 remanding back the matter to the same authority is not an interlocutory order, therefore, the revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 would be maintainable. Learned counsel has further submitted that while filing revision before the Revisional Authority, the petitioners have taken all legal grounds making prayer that the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority be set aside but the Revisional Authority has rejected the revision holding that no revision would lie against the remand order being an interlocutory order.

In support of his aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case in re: Deena Nath and others versus Deputy Director of Consolidation 2013 (31) LCD 58, referring para 30 whereby the reference was answered by the Division Bench of this Court to the effect that the remand order may not be treated as interlocutory order, therefore, the revision would be maintainable. For the convenience, para 30 is reproduced herein below:-

"30. Our answers to the questions are as follows:-

(1) an order passed in appeal under Section 11 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act by the Settlement Officer Consolidation deciding the appeal finally by setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and revision is not barred against such order under Section 48.

(2) the law down in Ajab Singh and others v. Jt. Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 1996 R.D. 104, Rajbir v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, reported in 1999 (90) R.D. 313, Rajit Ram Singh and others v. Mahadev Singh and others, reported in 2002 (93) R.D. 224 do not lay down the correct law."

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case in re: Nadakerappa since deceased by Lrs. and Ors versus Pillamma since deceased by Lrs. and Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos.7657-7658 of 2017; March 31, 2022] 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 332, referring para 25, which reads as under:-

"25. The Division Bench, without assigning any cogent reasons, has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and has remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. It is settled law that the order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the case on merits. Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal. We are of the view that, in the instant case, the Division Bench has remanded the matter without any justification."

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has however tried to defend the impugned order dated 23.01.2023 but he has stated that since the issue have been answered by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Court Apex Court has also held that such type of orders are not interlocutory order, therefore, he has nothing to say.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as the decision of this Court in re; Deena Nath and others (supra), Nadakerappa since deceased by Lrs. and Ors (supra), I am also of the considered opinion that an order passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the order of the first Revenue Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the said lower Revenue Authority would not be an interlocutory order as that order has attained the finality. Against any order which has attained the finality, the Revisional Authority may entertain the revision and may pass appropriate order on merits.

Accordingly, the order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya is set aside on the aforesaid ground alone which has been considered above and issue is remanded back to the Revisional Authority to decide the revision afresh on merits, strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned with expedition, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Since the aforesaid order has been passed without hearing the private opposite parties, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners shall apprise this order to the private opposite parties in writing so that they could know about the order being passed by this Court. At the same time, learned Revisional Court shall also issue notice to private opposite parties so that they could put their appearance before the Revisional Authority and the revision may be decided in terms of the order of this Court. It is also directed that the parties shall participate in a revisional proceedings properly and shall not take unnecessary adjournment.

In view of the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition is partly allowed.

Order Date :- 18.5.2023

Mohd. Sharif