Revisional Authority Can't Set Aside Final Order Passed By Coordinate Revisional Authority In Separate Revision: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a revisional authority deciding a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 has no jurisdiction to set aside a final judgment already rendered by another revisional authority of coordinate jurisdiction in a separate revision arising out of the same appellate order.

Section 219(1) of the Act allows the specified revenue authorities to call for the record of a case decided by a subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies, or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, and to examine the legality or propriety of the order passed. Sub-section (2) bars a further application under the section by the same person before any other such authority.

Justice Irshad Ali held,

“The statutory scheme, therefore, makes it clear that the revisional jurisdiction is directed against the legality or propriety of the order or proceeding of the subordinate revenue court which is brought before the revisional authority. The provision does not confer upon the revisional authority an unlimited power of review over every order which may have been passed in the history of the litigation.”

It held,

“If the view taken in the impugned order were to be accepted, the consequence would be that whenever several persons have independently challenged the same original order, the authority deciding a later revision could nullify a judgment already rendered in an earlier revision. Such a course would result in uncertainty and would permit one revisional authority to effectively sit in appeal over the judgment of another authority exercising coordinate jurisdiction.”

The dispute arose out of mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act after the death of Bhagauti Singh, a recorded bhumidhar who died issueless on 24.01.1994. Several persons sought mutation of their names on the strength of different registered and unregistered Wills.

By order dated 26.09.1997, the Naib Tehsildar, Bharawan, District Hardoi rejected all the claims, finding the Wills unproved and the signatures of the alleged testator at variance, and directed that the land be recorded in the name of the State Government.

The petitioners' appeal was dismissed on 30.05.1998, but their revision, Revision No. 1014/1997-98, was allowed on 15.02.1999 and their names were thereafter entered in the revenue records.

Other claimants, who were not parties to that revision, had separately invoked the revisional jurisdiction against the same appellate order. Deciding one of those revisions, the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division by order dated 24.09.2004 set aside the judgment dated 15.02.1999. The petitioners' application for recall of that order was rejected on 22.03.2005. Both orders were challenged before the High Court.

The Court observed that the bar in Section 219(2) operates only against a further application by the same person, and the later revision could not be faulted merely because the petitioners' revision had already been decided.

“The mere fact that one person has already preferred a revision against an order does not, by itself, prevent another person, who was independently aggrieved by the same order, from invoking the revisional jurisdiction.”

The Court held that the subsequent revisional authority could examine whether the appellate order suffered from a jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity, but that such power could not be equated with a power to sit in appeal over or review a final judgment rendered by a coordinate authority.

“The doctrine of finality of judicial proceedings is not founded merely upon the principle of res judicata. It also flows from the institutional requirement that an order finally passed by a competent authority cannot be repeatedly reopened by another authority exercising the same jurisdiction unless the statute expressly confers such power.”

The Court held that nothing in Section 219 conferred a power to nullify the earlier judgment. To hold otherwise, it observed, would allow the authority deciding a later revision to set at naught a judgment already delivered in an earlier one wherever several persons had independently challenged the same original order.

On the plea that the earlier judgment was ex parte, the Court held that the remedy of the other claimants was to pursue such course as was available to them in law against that judgment. It held that a grievance of want of hearing could not by itself enlarge the jurisdiction of an authority deciding a separate revision.

“However, the existence of an aggrieved party does not dispense with the requirement of jurisdiction. Every relief must be obtained before the forum competent in law to grant it.”

Accordingly, the orders dated 24.09.2004 and 22.03.2005 were quashed to the extent they set aside the judgment dated 15.02.1999, which stood restored, subject to the clarification that it would not be construed as a final adjudication of title. The parties were left at liberty to seek adjudication of their substantive rights before the competent court.

Case Title: Umesh Singh and 3 Ors. Objection Filed v. Addl. Commissioner Lucknow and 5 Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order