Allahabad High Court: In a petition filed against the order passed by Tahsildar in proceedings under Section 25 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and praying for certain ancillary reliefs Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. held that the Revenue Code is fully applicable to areas added to municipal limits after July 7, 1949, previously governed by Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (‘ZA Act, 1950’), before its repeal. Further, it said that the objection raised by the petitioner about the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar in passing of the order exercising powers under Section 25, is legally untenable, and the said order is unassailable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
For examining the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar which has passed the impugned order the Court considered the question relating to the applicability of the provisions of the Revenue Code to an area notified under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916.
The Court said that the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been described as an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to land tenures and the land revenue in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and to provide for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
The Court noted that the provision relating to the extent of the Act is contained under Section 1 of the Revenue Code. The applicability of the Revenue Code is provided for under Section 2, whereas Section 3 contains the provision for extension of the Code to new areas.
The Court mentioned that the enactment of the Revenue Code has resulted in repeal of certain enactments, which have been specified in the First Schedule of the Act. The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, are amongst the various enactments which have been repealed.
The Court further noted that the Chapters VIII and IX of the Revenue Code have been stated to apply to the areas to which any of the enactments specified at Serial Nos. 19 and 25 of the First Schedule, was applicable on the date immediately preceding its repeal by the Revenue Code. The enactment Specified at Serial No. 19 is the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the enactment specified at Serial No. 25 is the U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956.
The Court said that Section 25 of the Revenue Code, which pertains to “rights of way and other easements” and under which the impugned order has been passed, is part of Chapter IX of the Code, and in terms thereof, the Tahsildar after local inquiry as may be considered necessary, decide the matter with reference to the prevailing custom and with due regard to the convenience of all the parties concerned.
The Court also noted that Section 26 relates to “removal of obstacles” and in its terms if the Tahsildar finds that any obstacle impedes the free use of a public road, path or common land of a village or obstructs the road or water course or source of water, he may direct the removal of such obstacle. Further, the powers exercisable by the Tahsildar under Section 25 or Section 26, are subject to the revisional power of the Sub Divisional Officer, under Section 27 of the Revenue Code.
The Court highlighted that the aforesaid provisions, under Sections 25, 26 and 27, are part of Chapter IX of the Revenue Code, and as per the terms of Section 2 thereof, the said provisions would be applicable to the whole of the Uttar Pradesh, without any exception.
The Court took note of the provisions contained under Section 1 (2) of the ZA Act, 1950 and observed that it carves an exception in respect to the areas to which the Town Areas Act, Cantonment Act or the Municipalities Act, were applicable. Thus, the inclusion has to be as on the date 07-07-1949, and any subsequent inclusion of the area within the limits of a municipality, notified area, a cantonment area or town area would not be material and would be of no consequence for the purpose.
Thus, the Court clarified that in respect of an area which was not included in the limits of a municipality, under the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916, as on 07-07-1949, the provisions of the ZA Act, 1950 applied, and the subsequent inclusion of such an area within the limits of a municipality after 07-07-1949 would be inconsequential.
After a conjoint reading of Section 1(2) of the Z.A. Act with the provisions contained under Section 2 of the Revenue Code, the Court concluded that the provisions under Chapters VIII and IX of the Revenue Code shall apply to such areas, in addition to the provisions under the remaining Chapters being applicable.
The Court emphasised the following:
-
The provisions of the Revenue Code will apply to the whole of Uttar Pradesh, except: (i) Chapter VIII which deals with management of land and other properties of Gram Panchayat or other local authorities, and (ii) Chapter IX which deals with tenures.
-
The provisions of Chapters VIII and IX, together with the provisions under the remaining chapters of the Revenue Code, shall apply to the areas to which the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956, were applicable on the date immediately preceding their repeal by the Revenue Code.
-
An area which was included in the municipal limits after July 7, 1949 and to which Z.A. Act, 1950 continued to be applicable by virtue of the provisions contained under Section 1(2) thereof, would be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in its entirety, after the repeal of the Z.A. Act, 1950 by the Revenue Code.
Concerning the present case, the Court said that the village in question, having been included within the municipal limits, in terms of a notification dated 31-12-2019, issued under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, and the provisions of the Z.A. Act, 1950, being applicable to it as on the date of enforcement of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is 11-02-2016, in terms of Section 2 thereof, the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, would apply to the area, in its entirety.
Further, the Court refused to entertain the writ petition on the grounds of the availability of the statutory alternative remedy of a revision under Section 27 of the Revenue Code.
[Hari Prasad Pandey v. State of UP, 2024 SCC OnLine All 5852, decided on 04-10-2024]
