The Allahabad High Court has affirmed the continued availability of remedies under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, for applicants seeking revision of decrees from suits predating the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
The Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar said this while hearing a petition filed by Charan Singh.
In the petition, the order under challenge was passed in a revision filed by the applicants against the decree dated 19.8.2014 passed in a suit filed under Section 229B of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 ( UPZA & LR Act, 1950) and on specific query by the Court from the petitioners’ counsel about the maintainability of the revision on in contrast to the remedy of appeal available under section 207 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 wherein a party aggrieved by the final decree passed in any suit specified in Column-II of the 3rdSchedule appended with the UP Revenue Code, 2006 could have filed, the counsel had taken recourse to the provisions of section 333 of the UP ZA & LR Act, 1950.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, (i) since there is already a judgement of the Court passed in Misc Single laying down the law that after the enactment of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, which enforced w.e.f 11.2.2016, the remedy as was available in the UPZA & LR Act shall continue to remain in force for the petitioners as the suit was filed prior to 11.2.2016 and the provisions of UP Revenue Code, 2006 would be applicable only on the suits filed post 11.2.2016;
(ii) as per the order dated 20.4.2017 passed in Anand Kumar Singh & Another case (supra), a Revision shall be maintainable in the case as per the provisions of UPZA & LR Act, 1950;
(iii) the Supreme Court in Garikapati Veeraya v N Subbiah Choudhry and others2 has held that the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity and ought to be regarded as one legal proceedings. The institutions of the suit carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit, and;
(iv) such legal remedy of appeal as was available to a litigant on the date of the filing of the suit, in fact, is a substantive right and right to file an appeal or revision is not a mere matter of procedure but it is a right, which accrues to a litigant from the date when the lis commenced. Even though that right could be exercised when an adverse judgement would be pronounced, the law with regard to the filing of appeal or revision shall be governed by the law prevailing on the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding and not by the law that would prevail on the date of the decision.
Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that despite the remedy as provided in Section 230(2) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, and repeal of UP ZA & LR Act, the substantive right to file a revision under the UPZA & LR Act arises out of a decree passed in a suit filed prior to the enactment and subsequently enforcement of UP Revenue Code, 2006 could not take away by the new Act. Therefore, since the right to file a Revision was a remedy recognized as a substantive right under the UPZA & LR Act could not be taken away by the subsequent enactment of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 in case.
The Court observed that,
Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the view that the Single Judge, who had made the reference, had not considered the provisions of Section 230(2)(d) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, in its right perspective, and therefore, while only considering the provision of Section 231 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 the reference was made. Had the court been shown the provisions of Section 230(2)(d) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 then it would have become clear that such remedies as were available to the party which had filed any lis before the commencement of the new Act then all the remedies would have continued as were available to the litigant at the time of the filing of the Suit.
All remedies upon the filing of the Suit namely the filing of Appeals, Second Appeals, Revisions etc are really but steps in a series of proceedings connected by an intrinsic unity and are to be treated to be as a one legal proceeding. The Right of Appeal is not a matter of procedure but is a substantive Right. The institution of a Suit carries with it the implication that all remedies in force at the time of the filing of the Suit were to be preserved to the parties till the rest of the career of the Suit. The Appeal or a remedy to go to higher Court accrues to a litigant on the very date the lis commences and although it may be actually exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced such right is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the Suit.
In the case, since all remedies available at the time of the notification of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, had to continue, the remedy of Revision would also continue, even if it was not an inherent right which had accrued to the litigant as would be the case with an appeal.
Any repealing law which repeals an earlier law shall not affect the remedies available to a party which were available to the party on the date when the suit was filed. It would continue to be in existence for the litigant just as it was available to him or her on the date of the filing the lis. A vested right to go to a higher Court can be taken away by a subsequent enactment if the latter expressly provides or a bare reading of it shows that the right of going to a higher Court as per the earlier law had been by a necessary intendment taken away.
The Court further observed that,
In the case at hand, we find that not only by the repealing act the remedies of going to a higher Court had not been taken away but in fact they had been continued by the provisions of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, as is contained under section 230(2)(d) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The section 231 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 only states that all the cases pending before the Revenue Courts immediately before the commencement of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 whether any case, Appeal, Revision or otherwise shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of appropriate law which would have been applicable, as if the UP Revenue Code, 2006 had not been passed.
Hence, section 231 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, was a provision which only clarifies that a remedy which was available at the time when the lis was filed and had been availed would be decided by the provisions of the Old Act. There is no provision in the new Act which after repealing the UPZA & LR Act, 1950, snatches from a litigant the right of further remedies as were provided under the UPZA & LR Act, 1950, and hence we are answering the reference by observing that the Revision which was filed by the petitioner could have been filed and there was no provision in the UP Revenue Code, 2006, which had expressly taken away the vested right of having a remedy to go to a higher Court by means of a Revision.
Accordingly, the reference was answered.
The interim order granted earlier shall continue till the petitions are decided, the court ordered.