The Allahabad High Court ruled that the order passed in appeal u/s 35(2) of Revenue Code is revisable under Section 210.
The court stated that the Tehsildar, while deciding a dispute regarding mutation in cases of succession or transfer, in exercise of powers under sub section (1) of Section 35 of the Code, acts as a ‘Revenue Court’ within the meaning of Section 4(16) of the Code. The Sub Divisional Officer while deciding an appeal under subsection (5), against an order passed by the Tehsildar under subsection (1) also acts as a ‘Revenue Court’ and as such would be a Court subordinate to the Commissioner and subject to its revisional jurisdiction.
The court added that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 210, in order to subserve its purpose, would have to be seen not as a mere power but also a duty, which cannot be effectively discharged unless the Board or the Commissioner see to it that the subordinate revenue courts exercise their jurisdiction in accordance with law. The mere fact that there is no further appeal against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in an appeal under subsection (2) of Section 35 cannot warrant an inference that the legislature intended in any way to limit or control the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the Commissioner, under Section 210 of the Code.
The bench observed that Section 210 is essentially a source of power for the Board of Revenue or the Commissioner to supervise the subordinate revenue courts. The jurisdiction conferred under Section 210 to revise the orders passed by the subordinate revenue courts would not be dependant on a motion being made by a party to the case inasmuch as the section confers power to exercise revisional jurisdiction independent of any such motion having been made. The revisional jurisdiction under section 210 is designed to confer a wide power on the Board or the Commissioner to call for records and supervise the correctness of the proceedings subject to certain conditions.
“There being no provision under the Code for a second appeal against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer passed under subsection (2) of Section 35, it can be said that against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer in appeal, no further appeal lies, and therefore the necessary condition for invocation of the powers of the Commissioner under Section 210 for calling the records and exercising revisional powers against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in appeal under subsection (2) of Section 35, stands fulfilled”, the court said.
The court held that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in appeal under subsection (2) of Section 35, against which there is no further appeal, would be subject to the revisional powers of the Commissioner to be exercised under Section 210.
Facts
The petition has been filed primarily seeking to assail the order, passed by the respondent, the Naib Tehsildar, Panwadia, Tehsil Sadar, Rampur, in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 20061 , and the subsequent order, passed by the other respondent, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, Rampur, an appeal under Section 35(2) of the Code, whereby the earlier order has been affirmed.
Counsel appearing for the State respondents and also the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, have raised an objection with regard to the entertainability of the writ petition by pointing out that the order passed in appeal, under Section 35(2) of the Code, would be subject to the statutory remedy of a revision under Section 210 of the Code.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the remedy of a revision under Section 210 is available only in a situation where no appeal lies, and in the instant case since the petitioner is seeking to assail an order passed in an appeal under subsection (2) of Section 35, the remedy of revision would not be available.
Conclusion
The objection raised on behalf of the State respondents and also the other respondent, with regard to the availability of a statutory remedy against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in an appeal under sub section (2) of Section 35 of the Code, was sustained by the court.
Case Details
Case Name: Mohd. Yasir Ali Khan v/s State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Citation: WRIT C No. 11344 of 2024
Counsel for Petitioner : Archana Singh,Shreeprakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent : Arvind Srivastava,C.S.C.,Vikrant Gupta
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Decision Date: 05/08/2024
