Allahabad High Court
Devendra Nath Singh vs Board Of Revenue,U.P., Lucknow ... on 29 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24474
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 368 of 2025
Petitioner :- Devendra Nath Singh
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue,U.P., Lucknow Thru.Chairman,Revenue And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Harshit Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today is taken on record.
2. Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate, alongwith Sri Harshit Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajendra Prasad Maurya alongwith Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Land Management Committee concerned.
3. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to the respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 5 is hereby dispensed with. It is for the reason that the revision in issue i.e. Revision No. REV/2810/2023/Ballia, Computerized Case No. R20231509002810 (Devendra Nath Singh vs. Jagdish Singh) instituted on 10.10.2023, was taken up for the first time on 16.10.2023 before the respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and on this date, no effective order could be passed on account of Call of the Bar and the matter was fixed for 26.10.2023, on which date, without issuance of notice to the private respondents herein, the revision was dismissed and thereafter, the review application registered as Case No. REW/3577/2023/Balli, Computerized Case No. R20231509003577 (Devendra Nath Singh vs. Jagdish Singh) filed in terms of Section 211 of the Code of 2006 against the order dated 26.10.2023 was also dismissed by the respondent No. 1 after hearing learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned State counsel vide order dated 22.10.2024.
4. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-
"i. To issue a writ in, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing/setting aside the order dated 26.10.2023 22.10.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Lucknow in Review No. 3577/2023 (Devendra Nath Singh Vs Jagdish Singh) and order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Lucknow in Revision 2810/2023 (Devendra Nath Singh Vs Jagdish Singh) contained in Annexure No.01&2 to this writ petition."
5. Brief facts of the case in hand are as under:-
(i) A mutation case registered as Case No. 01415 of 2020, Computerized Case No. T202015090401415 (Devendra Nath and others vs. Lilavati) filed in terms of Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") was decided by the Tehsildar concerned vide order dated 02.05.2022, which is favourable to the petitioner.
(iii) Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2022, an appeal in terms of Section 207 of the Code of 2006 was filed by the private respondent No. 2/Jagdish Singh, which is pending as Appeal No. 2340/2022, Computerized Case No. T202215090402340 (Jagdish Singh vs. Devendra Nath Singh) before the S.D.M., Tehsil- Rasara, District- Ballia.
(iv) In the aforesaid appeal, an objection was filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 35(2) of the Code of 2006, in which, the petitioner stated that appeal filed under Section 207 of the Code of 2006 is not maintainable, as the statutory remedy to an aggrieved party against the order passed in mutation case is available under Section 35(2) of the Code of 2006. This objection of the petitioner was rejected by the S.D.M., Tehsil- Rasara, District- Ballia vide order dated 11.09.2023.
(v) The order dated 11.09.2023 was challenged by the petitioner by means ofRevision No. REV/2810/2023/Ballia, Computerized Case No. R20231509002810 (Devendra Nath Singh vs. Jagdish Singh) filed in terms of Section 210 of the Code of 2006, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1.
(vi) Thereafter, the review applicationregistered as Case No. REW/3577/2023/Balli, Computerized Case No. R20231509003577 (Devendra Nath Singh vs. Jagdish Singh) filed in terms of Section 211 of the Code of 2006 against the order dated 26.10.2023 was also dismissed by the respondent No. 1 vide impugned order dated 22.10.2024.
6. In the aforesaid background of the case, the instant petition has been filed before this Court on the basis of observations made by this Court in the judgment dated 15.12.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 10931 of 2023 (Qamar Abbas vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial)-I, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others).
7. The side opposite has relied upon the judgment dated dated 28.05.2024 passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 1596 of 2024 (Smt. Madeena vs. State of U.P. and others).
8. In the case of Smt. Madeena (supra), the provision in issue i.e. Section 35(2) of the Code of 2006 was taken note of by this Court whereas, the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Qamar Abbas (supra) relates to Section 24 of the Code of 2006.
9. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts of the case and the judgments, referred above, as well as the principles related to mentioning of wrong provision, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition. It is for the following reasons:-
(i) As per statutory provision(s) i.e. Section 35(2), Section 207 and Schedule III of the Code of 2006, the Appellate Authority in relation to an order passed in mutation case is the S.D.M. concerned and in the instant case, the appeal is pending consideration before the S.D.M. concerned namely S.D.M., Tehsil- Rasara, District- Ballia.
(ii) In the judgment passed in the case ofSmt. Madeena (supra), this Court, on similar issue, in paragraphs 38 and 39 thereof observed as under:-
"38. So far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that appeal filed by the respondent no. 5 was under Section 207 of the Code whereas the appeal ought to have been filed under Section 35(2) of the Code and as such the appeal filed by the respondent no. 5 was not maintainable is also misconceived. Section 35(2) of the Code provides for filing of an appeal against an order passed by Tehsildar under sub-Section 1 of Section 35 of the Code. Section 207 of the Code provides for an appeal by any party aggrieved by final order or decree passed in a suit, application or proceedings specified in column 2 of the Third Schedule, may prefer a first appeal to the Court or officer specified against it in Column 4, where such order or decree was passed by a Court or officer specified against it in Column 3 thereof.
39. From the perusal of the Third Schedule, it is clear that in mutation cases, against an order passed by the Tehsildar, the first appeal has to be filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Thus, in my view, there is no illegality in filing an appeal under Section 207 of the Code, merely mentioning of a section whether Section 207 or Section 35(2) of the Code will not make any difference as both the sections provide for filing an appeal against the orders passed by Tehsildar in mutation cases."
10. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Appellate Authority concerned to conclude the proceedings of pending appeal within a period of three months from the next date fixed in it.
Order Date :- 29.4.2025
Arun/-
