High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3650 of 2022 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Umesh Chandra Tiwari Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this petition file under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order of the District Magistrate dated 15.10.2021, whereby, the lease of the petitioner has come to be cancelled in purported exercise of power. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that there lies a revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the order passed by the Collector/ District Magistrate, Jaunpur, however, this is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since appeal has already been preferred in the matter, in view of the provisions under Section 210 that revision would lie before the Board of Revenue/ Commissioner in those cases where appeal does not lie, would mean that where the appeal lies, no further revision would lie. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar and having perused rule 59 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2016 as well as the relevant provisions as contained under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it clearly transpires that the power to be exercised by Collector/ District Magistrate under Rule 59 subject to the power conferred upon the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Rule 59 itself speaks that the order to be passed by the Collector/ District Magistrate in appeal shall be final subject to the provisions as contained under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. For ready reference and appreciation Rule 59 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are quoted herein below: "59. Appeal to Collector [Section 233(2)(xiv)].-- Every lease referred to in rule 57 or rule 58 shall be deemed to be a lease for agricultural purpose, and any person aggrieved thereby may prefer an appeal to the Collector within 30 days from the date of approval by the Sub-Divisional Officer and subject to the provisions of section 210, the order of the Collector shall be final. Section 210.-- Power to call for the records. - (1) The Board or the Commissioner may call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any sub-ordinate Revenue Court in which no appeal lies, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding, and if such subordinate Court appears to have- (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) acted in the exercise of such jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity; the Board, or the Commissioner, as the case may be, may pass such order in the case as it or he thinks fit. (2) If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board or to the Commissioner, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. Explanation. - For the removal of doubt it is, hereby, declared that when an application under this section has been moved either to the Board or to the Commissioner, the application shall not be permitted to be withdrawn for the purpose of filing the application against the same order to the other of them. (3) No application under this section shall be entertained after the expiry of a period of sixty days from the date of the order sought to be revised or from the date of commencement of this Code, whichever is later." 5. Sri J.P.N. Rai, learned Standing Counsel submits that the controversy qua maintainability of revision against the order of District Magistrate passed in appeal is no more res integra as this aspect has been extensively dealt with by this Court in the case of Jhinka Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors, 2022 SCC OnLine AII 319, wherein it has been held that revision against the order passed by the Commissioner in appeal under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is maintainable under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Vide paragraph nos. 51 to 64 it has been held thus: "51. In terms of the amendment made to sub-section (4) of Section 24 by the U.P. Act No. 7 of 2019, the finality attached to the order passed by the Commissioner in appeal has been made subject to the provisions of Section 210, and as per terms of Section 210, the power of the Board to call for the record of any subordinate court would be exercisable in case where no appeal lies. 52. The order of the Commissioner passed in exercise of powers under sub-section (4) of Section 24 is an order in appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed under sub-section (1) of Section 24, and this order is not subject to any second appeal under the Code. This is further clear from a reading of the Third Schedule of the Code wherein in respect of the provisions contained under Section 24 relating to disputes regarding boundary and boundary marks the court of original jurisdiction has been specified in column 3 as the court of Sub-Divisional Officer and the court of first appeal is mentioned in column 4 as the court of Commissioner; further column 5 pertaining to the second appeal is left blank. This goes to show that the order passed by the Commissioner in appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 24 against the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer acting as a court of original jurisdiction under sub- section (1) of Section 24, has a finality attached to it inasmuch as there is no provision of a second appeal against the said order. 53. By virtue of the amendment made to sub-section (4) of Section 24 in terms of U.P. Act No. 7 of 2019 the finality attached to the order of the Commissioner in appeal, has now been made subject to Section 210. There being no provision under the Code for a second appeal against the order of the Commissioner passed under sub-section (4) of Section 24, it can be said that against the order of the Commissioner in appeal, no further appeal lies, and therefore the necessary condition for invocation of the powers of the Board under Section 210 for calling the records and exercising revisional powers against the order passed by the Commissioner in appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 24, stands fulfilled. 54. A rule of construction, spoken of as, ex visceribus actus, helps in avoiding any inconsistency either within a section or between two different sections or provisions of the same statute. It essentially means that every part of a statute must be construed within its four corners and no provision should be interpreted in isolation. 55. Craies on Statute Law41 has explained the rule of ex visceribus actus by stating as follows :- "...there is a general rule of construction applicable to all statutes alike, which is spoken of as construction ex visceribus actus― within the four corners of the Act. "The office of a good expositor of an Act of Parliament," said Coke in the Lincoln College Case42, "is to make construction on all parts together, and not of one part only by itself―Nemo enim aliquam partem recte intelligere potest antequam totum iterum atque iterum perlegerit." And again he says : It is the most natural and genuine exposition of a statute to construe one part of a statute by another part of the same statute, for that best expresseth the meaning of the makers.... and this exposition is ex visceribus actus." 56. The finality attached to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 24, having been made subject to Section 210, by virtue of the amending Act of 2019, it would be presumed that the legislature was conscious of the existing provisions of Section 210 whereunder in order to invoke revisional powers of the Board the necessary condition is "where no appeal lies". 57. In this regard it may be noted that there is a general presumption that the legislature is aware of the existing law when it passes a legislation seeking to amend the earlier law. The legislature would therefore also be presumed not to intend to create any confusion in the law by creating a provision which is in conflict with the existing law. 58. The principle to be followed with regard to interpretation of an amending Act in the context of a pre-existing law was subject mater of consideration in Caesar Griffin's43 case, wherein it was observed as follows :- "...Of two constructions, either of which is warranted by the words of an amendment of a public act, that is to be preferred which best harmonizes the amendment with the general terms and spirit of the act amended. This principle forbids a construction of the amendment, not clearly required by its terms, which will bring it into conflict or disaccord with the other provisions of the constitution." 59. In this regard, reference may be had to the legal treatise "The Written Laws and Their Interpretation" by Joel Prentiss Bishop44 wherein it has been stated as follows :- "...A new statutory provision, cast into a body of written and unwritten laws, is not altogether unlike a drop of coloring matter to a pail of water. Not so fully, yet to a considerable extent, it changes the hue of the whole body; and how far and where it works the change can be seen only by him who comprehends the relations of the parts, and discerns how each particle acts upon and governs and is governed by the others....Every statute operates to modify or confirm something in the law which existed before. No statute is written, so to speak, upon a blank in the institutions of society. No such blank exists or can exist...In every case, it is a thread of woof woven into a warp which before existed. It is never to be contemplated as a thing alone, but always as a part of a harmonious whole." 60. In construing a statute there is a general presumption against inconsistency. The mind of the legislature is presumed to be consistent and in a case of any apparent ambiguity, such a construction is to be adopted as would make all the provisions of the statute consistent with each other and with the pre-existing body of law. 61. It would also be presumed that the legislature does not intend to be inconsistent with itself and that it does not intend to make unnecessary changes in the existing laws. Hence in case of any doubt, a statute is to be so construed as to be consistent with itself throughout its extent so as to harmonize with the other laws and be in consonance with the legislative purpose, provisions and scheme of the enactment. Interpretare et concordare leges legibus, est optimus interpretandi modus, that is, to interpret and in such a way as to harmonize laws with laws is the best mode of interpretation. 62. The presumption against inconsistency would lead to an inference that the legislature while bringing about the amendment to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 24 did not intend to create a conflict with the pre-existing provisions of Section 210, and it would be necessary to construe the two provisions harmoniously so as to make them workable. 63. Construing the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 24 and Section 210 in the aforesaid manner and by applying the principle of harmonious construction the apparent conflict between the two provisions would be reconciled and the provisions of the two sections can be read in a manner so as to give full effect to both the provisions without rendering either of them redundant or otiose. 64. It would therefore follow as a necessary consequence that the order passed by the Commissioner in appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 24, which is final in the sense that there is no further appeal there against, would be subject to the revisional powers of the Board to be exercised under Section 210." 6. Thus applying the above principles of law discussed extensively in the judgment vide paragraphs quoted herein above, there of course would lie a revision against the order of Collector passed in Appeal under Rule 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Decision
7. In view of the above and in the face of the fact that there is statutory alternative remedy of revision, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere in the mater at this stage. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply for revision. 8. Subject to the aforesaid liberty, this petition is consigned to records. Order Date :- 4.7.2022 IrfanUddin Digitally signed by IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI Date: 2022.07.07 13:18:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad