Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Land Revenue Matter — Revision Application Maintained. The High Court's finding regarding the maintainability of the second revision was incorrect as the amendment to Section 219 did not apply to pending applications.

  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a mutation application allowed by the Naib Tehsildar on May 4, 1992, which was subsequently challenged by the respondents through an appeal under Section 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901. The Sub Divisional Officer remanded the matter for fresh consideration on May 4, 1993. The appellant then filed a revision under Section 218, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. Following this, the appellant sought further revision under Section 219, which was allowed by the Board of Revenue on August 24, 2009, restoring the Naib Tehsildar's original order. The respondents challenged this order in a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court, where the Single Judge ruled that the second revision was not maintainable. The appellant contested this decision, arguing that the amendment to Section 219, which restricted further applications, did not apply to pending revisions. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Act, particularly the unamended Section 219, and concluded that the High Court's ruling was erroneous. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the writ petition for further consideration on merits. No costs were awarded.

Headnote

A) Land Revenue Law - Revision Applications - Maintainability of Second Revision - Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, Section 219 - The High Court's finding that the second revision was not maintainable was incorrect as the amendment to Section 219 did not apply to pending applications. The court held that the appellant's revision under the unamended Section 219 was maintainable and set aside the High Court's order (Paras 8-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the second revision application preferred by the appellant before the Board of Revenue under Section 219 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 was maintainable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated November 9, 2009, and restored the writ petition for hearing and consideration on merits.

Law Points

  • Land Revenue Act
  • Revision Applications
  • Maintainability of Revision
  • Jurisdiction of Authorities
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (SC) (09) 71

Civil Appeal No. 6247 of 2012

2012-09-03

R.M. Lodha, Anil R. Dave

Seva Lal

Sri Kant & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Land revenue dispute regarding mutation application.

Remedy Sought

Restoration of the order of the Naib Tehsildar allowing mutation.

Filing Reason

Challenging the High Court's ruling on the maintainability of the second revision.

Previous Decisions

The Additional Commissioner dismissed the first revision; the Board of Revenue allowed the second revision.

Issues

Maintainability of second revision under Section 219 Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the amendment to Section 219 did not apply to pending applications. The respondents contended that the second revision was not maintainable under the amended provisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the unamended Section 219 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 allowed the appellant's revision application to be maintainable despite the High Court's contrary finding.

Judgment Excerpts

The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appellant revision preferred under Section 218 of the Act. The view of the High Court is thus clearly wrong that the revision application preferred by the appellant before the Board of Revenue under Section 219 of the Act was not maintainable.

Procedural History

The Naib Tehsildar allowed mutation on May 4, 1992; the Sub Divisional Officer remanded the matter on May 4, 1993; the Additional Commissioner dismissed the first revision; the Board of Revenue allowed the second revision on August 24, 2009; the High Court set aside the Board's order.

Acts & Sections

  • Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901: Section 210, Section 218, Section 219
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Husband, Sister-in-law, and Mother-in-law for Murder of Married Woman Based on Circumstantial Evidence. The court held that the chain of circumstances including dowry demand, cruelty, and last seen together est...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petitions in Industrial Dispute Over Bonus Payment — No Error Apparent on Record. Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to errors apparent on face of record; re-argument on merits not permitted.