UP Revenue Code 2006 | Final Order In First Appeal Can Be Challenged In Revision U/S 210: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that remedy of revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is available against the final order passed by the Commissioner in appeal under Section 207 of the Code, 2006.

The bench comprising of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that the ‘proceeding decided’ in Section 210 (Power to call for the records) of the Code would include the final order passed by the Commissioner in appeal.

“The revisional court has the power to rectify an order of a subordinate revenue court at any stage of the suit or proceedings, even if, the order does not finally dispose of the suit or the proceeding. The expression 'proceeding decided' would include a part of a proceeding and an interlocutory order directly affecting the rights and obligation of parties would also have to be held to be included within its scope,” held the Court.

Factual Background:

Petitioner and private Respondents acquired the property of two brothers, in parts, vide different registered sale deeds and were mutated as co-sharers in revenue records. Petitioner filed a suit under Section 116 (Suit for division of holding) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 20061 for division of the holding which was decided ex-parte as Respondents did not file any written statement.

Respondent filed a recall application which was rejected. Thereafter, an appeal was filed under Section 207 of the Code against the ex-parte decree as well as the rejection of the recall application.

Commissioner Azamgarh allowed the appeals and set aside the decree on the ground that it had been passed ex-parte. Further, the recall/ restoration application was dismissed cursorily without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Commissioner also noted that the observations made by the Court below were untenable in light of the fact that the land was not inherited but acquired through sale deeds.

Private Respondents raised an objection on the maintainability of the writ petition against the order of the Commissioner contending that the petitioner had the statutory remedy of revision under 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the order of the Commissioner acting as First Appellate Authority.

Petitioner argued that it was ‘remand simpliciter’ and no observations had been made on the merits of the case, thus, remedy of revision was not available to it.

High court verdict:

The Court held that since the order of the Commissioner contained a detailed discussion on the merits of the case, it cannot be said to be a ‘remand simpliciter’. Further, since the matter has been remanded back for a fresh hearing after giving both parties an opportunity to adduce evidence and be heard, finality is attached to the impugned order.

The Court noted that since the matter was remanded, Section 209(e) of the Code will act as a bar on any statutory appeal against the impugned order. Thus, the issue would be whether revisional jurisdiction under Section 210 of the Code could be invoked against the remand order.

Justice Srivastava emphasised on the phrase “proceeding decided” occurring in Section 210 and observed that the word ‘proceeding’ occurring in Section 210 has a wider connotation than the word ‘case’.

Noting the scheme of Section 210, the Court held :

“The maintainability of a revision would therefore depend on two conditions; first, that it must relate to a suit or proceeding decided by any Revenue Court subordinate to the Board or Commissioner and second, it must be in (i) exercise of jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (ii) failure to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or connection with any 'suit or proceeding decided', against which no appeal lies. Once these twin conditions are satisfied, it cannot be said that the revision would not be maintainable. The question, whether in a given case, the Court chooses to exercise the jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the subordinate Revenue Court in a suit or proceeding decided would depend upon the facts and circumstances indicative of jurisdictional error in a particular case.”

Since an appeal is a continuation of a suit, the word 'proceeding' would also include the 'proceedings' at the appellate stage, held the Court.

“The condition precedent in order to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 210 has been seen to include within its ambit 'proceeding decided' other than a 'suit decided'. It cannot be restricted to the entirety of proceedings in the journey of a suit. To interpret 'proceeding decided' as entire proceedings and not a part of a proceeding would amount to restricting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction which is not as contemplated under Section 210.”

Accordingly, the Court held that the Petitioner had the remedy to approach the revisional authority, and dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Paltoo Ram Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT ­ C No. ­ 10192 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 272

Appearances: S.B. Singh and Hemant Kumar Rai, counsel for the petitioner, Kunal Ravi Singh, Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Abhishek Shukla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for State and Vinod Kumar Chandel, for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

Click Here To Read/Download Order