# Nagar Palika Parishad v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 741
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-16
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 39926 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagar-palika-parishad-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-51343
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Environmental Law - Writ Jurisdiction
-
Competence
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Pollution Control Board (U.P. P.C.B.) to
impose environmental compensation -
Constitution of India - Article 226, The
Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 -
Section 3 - Municipality , National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 15 - Relief,
compensation and restitution, Section 22 -
Appeal before Supreme court , Solid Waste
Management Rules, 2016 - National Green
Tribunal has adjudicatory powers and
cannot be delegated to an administrative
authorities
-
Any
challenge
to
an
environmental compensation order issued
in compliance with N.G.T. directions must
be raised before the N.G.T. or Supreme
Court under Section 22 of the N.G.T. Act,
2010 - Writ court cannot stay or interfere
with an order passed in furtherance of
N.G.T. directives.(Para -21)

Nagar Palika Parishad was directed by U.P.
P.C.B. to pay an environmental compensation -
for improper waste management and dumping
garbage in residential areas - assessment was
based on the directions of the N.G.T - taken suo
motu cognizance of a complaint regarding
environmental violations - petitioner challenged
the demand - only the N.G.T. has the authority
to assess and impose such penalties. (Para - 2
to 9)

HELD:
-
Writ
petition
challenging
environmental
compensation
assessed
in
compliance with National Green Tribunal
(NGT) orders cannot be maintained in writ
jurisdiction. Petitioner has an alternative
remedy available before the NGT or the
Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT
Act, 2010. Granting relief would interfere with
NGT orders, which is not permissible. No
interim or final relief can be granted. (Para -
20 to 22)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan
Appellants Trust & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & ors.,
2022 Supreme (SC) 772
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

12 All. Nagar Palika Parishad Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
741
5. In this case, matters become all
the more suspicious because on a perusal of
record, the Collector has returned a finding
to the effect that the allotment papers show
that the minute book of the Gaon Sabha of
the day does not carry the signatures or
thumb impressions of members of the Land
Management Committee and at the end of
the resolution, the Gram Pradhan alone has
signed it. In the same manner, the agenda
too is signed by the Pradhan alone and not
by the other members of the Land
Management Committee or the Lekhpal.
The allotment being in favour of the four
brothers of the Pradhan, the very suspicious
record of minutes of the Land Management
Committee, signed by the Pradhan alone,
place the proceedings under an unignorable
cloud of doubt.

6. I do not find it to be a fit case
for interference by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution.

7. In the result, this petition fails
and stands dismissed.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 741
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ -C No. 39926 of 2024

Nagar Palika Parishad ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakesh Kumar Singh, Umesh Vats

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., J.N. Maurya
(A) Environmental Law - Writ Jurisdiction
-
Competence
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Pollution Control Board (U.P. P.C.B.) to
impose environmental compensation -
Constitution of India - Article 226, The
Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 -
Section 3 - Municipality , National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 15 - Relief,
compensation and restitution, Section 22 -
Appeal before Supreme court , Solid Waste
Management Rules, 2016 - National Green
Tribunal has adjudicatory powers and
cannot be delegated to an administrative
authorities
-
Any
challenge
to
an
environmental compensation order issued
in compliance with N.G.T. directions must
be raised before the N.G.T. or Supreme
Court under Section 22 of the N.G.T. Act,
2010 - Writ court cannot stay or interfere
with an order passed in furtherance of
N.G.T. directives.(Para -21)

Nagar Palika Parishad was directed by U.P.
P.C.B. to pay an environmental compensation -
for improper waste management and dumping
garbage in residential areas - assessment was
based on the directions of the N.G.T - taken suo
motu cognizance of a complaint regarding
environmental violations - petitioner challenged
the demand - only the N.G.T. has the authority
to assess and impose such penalties. (Para - 2
to 9)

HELD:
-
Writ
petition
challenging
environmental
compensation
assessed
in
compliance with National Green Tribunal
(NGT) orders cannot be maintained in writ
jurisdiction. Petitioner has an alternative
remedy available before the NGT or the
Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT
Act, 2010. Granting relief would interfere with
NGT orders, which is not permissible. No
interim or final relief can be granted. (Para -
20 to 22)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan
Appellants Trust & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & ors.,
2022 Supreme (SC) 772
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,
J. & Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Shri Umesh Vats learned
counsel for the petitioner, Shri Aditya
Shanker, holding brief of Shri Mehul
Khare, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1, 5, and 6.

2. The petitioner-Nagar Palika
Parishad,
Khoda
Makanpur,
district
Ghaziabad has invoked writ jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of Constitution
of India challenging the order dated
30.07.2024,
whereby
the
Chief
Environment
Officer,
Region-I,
Uttar
Pradesh Pollution Control Board, T.C.-
12th,
Vibhuti
Khand,
Gomti
Nagar,
Lucknow has asked the petitioner to
deposit a sum of Rs.91,25,000/- (rupees
ninety one lac twenty five thousand) as
environmental
compensation.
A
consequential recovery citation issued by
the Tehsil Authorities on 27.10.2024 has
also been challenged. A further direction
has
been
sought
commanding
the
respondents not to proceed with recovery
against the petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
the petitioner is a Municipality defined
under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh
Municipalities Act, 1916 and it was handed
over a land for establishment of wastage
processing and solid waste plant on
21.12.2021 in village Nidhauri, Pargana
Dasna, Tehsil Ghaziabad. It is alleged that
funds were received by the petitioner under
Swachchh Bharat Mission and wastage
processing and solid waste plant of 90 TPD
capacity
has
been
developed
and
processing machines have
also been
established. Certain aspects are not to be
elaborated here as the issue involved before
us is as to whether the Uttar Pradesh
Pollution
Control
Board
(herein-after
referred to as "U.P. P.C.B.") was having
any authority or competence to raise
demand of environmental compensation,
inasmuch as the foundation of the writ
petition and challenge made to the
impugned demand is on the ground of "lack
of competence/jurisdiction".

4. Assailing the impugned order
and recovery citation, learned counsel for
the petitioner urged that the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Government of India, vide notification
dated 08.04.2016, notified the Solid Waste
Management Rules, 2016 (herein-after
referred to as the "Rules of 2016") and no
law empowers the U.P. P.C.B. to assess or
demand
environmental
compensation.
Submission is that only the National Green
Tribunal (N.G.T.) established under the
provisions of National Green Tribunal Act,
2010 is competent to assess environmental
compensation.

5. Shri Umesh Vats, elaborating his
submissions, urged that the impugned order
dated 30th July 2024 refers to some orders
passed by the N.G.T., New Delhi in
Original Application No. 70 of 2024
(Deepak Joshi vs. State of U.P) and is said
to have been issued in compliance of the
said orders, whereas no such direction was
issued by the N.G.T. nor is there any order
passed by the N.G.T. determining or
quantifying
the
environmental
compensation
and,
hence,
the
order
impugned is not sustainable.

6. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel has placed reliance upon
the judgement of the Supreme Court in
Kantha
Vibhag
Yuva
Koli
Samaj
12 All. Nagar Palika Parishad Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
743
Parivartan Appellants Trust and others vs.
State of Gujarat and others, 2022
Supreme (SC) 772, as well as certain
interim orders passed by Co-ordinate
Benches of this Court in Writ C No. 4816
of 2024 (Suez India Pvt. Ltd., through its
Authorized Signatory, Rajesh Chandra
Mathpal
vs.
Uttar
Pradesh
Pollution
Control Board, through its Chairman and 6
others), Writ C No. 7543 of 2024 (M/s
Pind
Balluchi
(Unit
of
Excellence
Hospitality)
through
Partner
Smarity
Sindhu and Monu Mishra vs. State of U.P.
through
Principal
Secretary,
Forest,
Environment and Climate Change and
others), and Writ C No. 8463 of 2024
(Jaypee
Infratech
Limited
through
Authorized Representative Apurva Pragya
vs. State of U.P. through Additional Chief
Secretary, Environment Forest and Climate
Change LKO and others).

7. Submission is that since Coordinate Benches have granted interim
orders staying the action of U.P. P.C.B.
levying environmental compensation, this
Court may also pass an interim order on
identical lines.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for
the respondents submits that the impugned
action is in furtherance and in compliance
of various orders passed by the N.G.T.,
Delhi in the case of Deepak Joshi (supra)
and, therefore, once the petitioner has a
remedy to challenge the orders passed by
the N.G.T., Delhi before Hon'ble Supreme
Court,
challenge
made
to
mere
consequential demand is not sustainable.

9. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
N.G.T., Delhi took suo moto cognizance of
a letter dated 10.08.2023 sent by Deepak
Joshi,
Adhyaksh,
Khoda
Residence
Association alleging that the Nagar Palika
Parishad,
Khoda
Makanpur
(i.e.
the
petitioner) was dumping garbage in the
residential
area
in
violation
of
the
provisions of Rules of 2016. The N.G.T.
passed
an
order
dated
07.03.2024
constituting a joint committee comprising
of District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and U.P.
P.C.B. with the District Magistrate as Nodal
Agency for cooperation and compliance.
The N.G.T. also issued a direction to the
committee to visit the site and collect
relevant information and submit a report.
Copy of the order was forwarded to the
District Magistrate and U.P. P.C.B. for
compliance.
Thereafter,
when
the
Committee constituted by N.G.T. submitted
a detailed report before it, another order
was passed on 19.04.2024 calling for the
response from State of U.P. through District
Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Executive Officer,
Nagar Palika Parishad, Khoda Makanpur
(i.e. the petitioner) and U.P. P.C.B.
impleading them as respondents. The
matter was fixed for 05.07.2024. On the
said date, N.G.T. found that Pollution
Control Board had issued a show cause
notice
proposing
environmental
compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per
day. The N.G.T., not being satisfied with
the basis for imposition at such rate, called
for a reply from the respondents before the
N.G.T. asking U.P. P.C.B. to inform as to
on what basis quantum of environmental
compensation had been proposed at such
rate. It also directed personal appearance of
the Executive Officer of the petitioner
Parishad on the next date. It is in
furtherance of the said order dated
05.07.2024 that the impugned order has
been passed by the U.P. P.C.B. on
30.07.2024 raising a demand of Rs. 5,000/-
per day instead of Rs.10,000/- per day as
environmental compensation, total amount
of demand being Rs. 91,25,000/-.
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. We may observe here that
Section
22
of
the
National
Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 contains provision for
appeal before the Supreme Court. It is
reproduced as under:-

"22. Appeal to Supreme
Court.-Any person aggrieved by
any award, decision or order of the
tribunal, may, file an appeal to the
Supreme Court, within ninety days
from the date of communication of
the award, decision or order of the
Tribunal, to him, on any one or
more of the grounds specified in
section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908:
Provided that the Supreme
Court may entertain any appeal
after the expiry of ninety days, if it
is satisfied that the appellant was
prevented by sufficience cause
from preferring the appeal."

11. If we examine the bone of
contention of Shri Vats that the order
impugned is without jurisdiction and it is
only N.G.T. that has competence to
determine and levy the environmental
compensation, Section 15 of the National
Green
Tribunal
Act,
2010
needs
reproduction. The same is quoted as under:
-

"15. Relief, compensation
and restitution. (1) The Tribunal
may, by an order, provide,-
(a) relief and compensation
to the victims of pollution and other
environmental
damage
arising
under the enactments specified in
the Schedule I (including accident
occurring
while
handling
any
hazardous substance);
(b)
for
restitution
of
property damaged;
(c)for restitution of the
environment for such area or areas,
as the Tribunal may think fit.
(2)
The
relief
and
compensation and restitution of
property and environment referred
to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) shall be in addition to
the relief paid or payable under the
Public Liability Insurance Act,
1991.
(3) No application for grant
of any compensation or relief or
restitution
of
property
or
environment under this section
shall be entertained by the Tribunal
unless it is made within a period of
five years from the date on which
the cause for such compensation or
relief first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal
may, if it is satisfied that the
applicant
was
prevented
by
sufficient cause from filing the
application within the said period,
allow it to be filed within a further
period not exceeding sixty days.
(4)
The
Tribunal
may,
having regard to the damage to
public
health,
property
and
environment,
divide
the
compensation or relief payable
under separate heads specified in
Schedule II so as to provide
compensation or relief to the
claimants and for restitution of the
damaged property or environment,
as it may think fit.
(5) Every claimant of the
compensation or relief under this
Act shall intimate to the Tribunal
about the application filed to, or, as
the case may be, compensation or
12 All. Nagar Palika Parishad Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
745
relief received from, any other
court or authority.

12. The aforesaid provision was
dealt with by the Supreme Court in Kantha
Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan
Appellants Trust (supra) and though,
placing strong reliance upon the said
judgment, it was urged by Shri Vats that the
Supreme Court turned down action of the
N.G.T., whereby it had delegated its
functions upon some committee, after
carefully examining the facts of Kantha
Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan
Appellans Trust (supra), we find that the
appellants before the Supreme Court were
certain environmental organizations and
individuals
directly
affected
by
the
degradation of the enforcement in the area
in question. Therefore, their status was that
of "complainants" and the following
directions were sought by them from the
N.G.T.:-

(i) restraining the dumping
of MSW at the landfill site;
(ii)
restoration
of
the
environment in the surrounding
areas;
(iii)
restitution
of
the
landfill
site
to
its
original
condition;
(iv) compensation to all
those
affected
in
the
nearby
villages upon determination of
damages by a committee set up to
assess the landfill site; and
(v) implementation of the
Solid Waste Management Rules
2016.

13.

After
holding
certain
proceedings, N.G.T. disposed of the matter
observing that since in another case, N.G.T.
had constituted Apex, Regional and State
Level
Committees
to
monitor
the
implementation of the Rules of 2016,
liberty
was
granted
to
the
appellants/complainants to represent the
case and ventilate all grievances before the
appropriate committee. Following is the
relevant portion of the order passed by the
N.G.T.:-

"As this OA relates to
implementation of Solid Waste
Management Rules, 2016, we are
of the considered opinion that it is
covered by the order passed by the
larger Bench of the Tribunal dated
20th August, 2018 in OA No 606 of
2018.
The Applicant would be
at liberty to represent its case
and ventilate all grievance before
the Committee which shall look
into it and finally decide the
same.
Consequently, OA No 81 of
2014 stands disposed of. There
shall be no order as to cost.
M.A. No. 1392 of 2018 and
1393 of 2018
These Applications do not
survive for consideration as the
main Application has been decided
and are accordingly dismissed."

14. The Supreme Court, while
examining the challenge to the order passed
by the N.G.T., held that N.G.T. could not
abdicate its jurisdiction by entrusting the
core
adjudicatory
functions
to
administrative
expert
committees.
In
paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the judgment,
it was observed as under:-

"16. Section 15 empowers
the NGT to award compensation to
the victims of pollution and for
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
environmental damage, to provide
for restitution of property which
has been damaged and for the
restitution of the environment. The
NGT
cannot
abdicate
its
jurisdiction by entrusting these core
adjudicatory
functions
to
administrative expert committees.
Expert
committees
may
be
appointed to assist the NGT in
the performance of its task and
as an adjunct to its fact-finding
role. But adjudication under the
statute is entrusted to the NGT and
cannot
be
delegated
to
administrative
authorities.
Adjudicatory functions assigned to
courts and tribunals cannot be
hived
off
to
administrative
committees. In Sanghar Zuber
Ismail v. Ministry of Environment,
Forests and Climate Change and
Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC
669, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court noted that the NGT cannot
refuse to hear a challenge to an
Environmental
Clearance
under
Section 16(h) of the NGT Act and
delegate the process of adjudicating
on
compliance
to
an
expert
committee.
17. The NGT has in the
present
case
abdicated
its
jurisdiction and entrusted judicial
functions
to
an
administrative
expert
committee.
An
expert
committee may be able to assist
the
NGT,
for
instance,
by
carrying
out
a
fact-finding
exercise, but the adjudication has
to be by the NGT. This is not a
delegable function. Thus, the order
impugned in the appeal cannot be
sustained. The consequence of the
impugned order is to efface the
meticulous exercise which was
carried out by the earlier Benches.
Valuable time has been lost in the
meantime
and
crucial
issues
pertaining to the environment in the
present case have been placed on
the back-burner."

15. From perusal of the aforequoted portions of the decision in Kantha
Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan
Appellants Trust (supra), it is apparent that
the Supreme Court never questioned the
competence of the expert committees in
the
matter
of
assessment
of
environmental compensation, rather it
specifically
observed
that
expert
committees may be appointed to assist
the N.G.T. in performance of its task and
as an adjunct to its fact finding role, but
adjudication under the statute is entrusted
to the N.G.T. and cannot be delegated to
administrativ authorities.

16. We are of the view that though
Section 15 of the Act empowers the N.G.T.
to pass an order providing relief and
compensation to the victims of the
pollution and other environmental damage,
in order to adjudicate the issue, assistance
of expert committees was never restricted,
rather, in so many words, it was permitted
by the Supreme Court in the judgment cited
by the petitioner itself. It is the same
judgment which has been relied upon by
the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ
petitions where interim orders have been
passed but in different set of facts where
some of the petitioners were operators and
some complainants.

17. In the facts of the case, the
Court finds that U.P. P.C.B. has not
imposed
environmental
compensation.
Rather, it is a case where joint committee
12 All. Nagar Palika Parishad Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
747
constituted by N.G.T. by order dated
22.07.2024
comprising
of
District
Magistrate, Ghaziabad and U.P. P.C.B. was
directed to visit the site, collect relevant
information and submit factual report. A
detailed report supported by various
annexures disclosing the area where the
garbage is being dumped, density of
population, the other quantitative and
qualitative factors and certain computations
is also on record. When the said report was
placed before the N.G.T., the show cause
notice issued to the petitioner asking to
deposit environmental compensation at the
rate of Rs.10,000/- per day was found to be
without
basis.
Thereafter,
the
order
impugned has been passed relying upon a
report of C.P.C.B, In House Committee on
Methodology for Assessing Environmental
Compensation and Action Plan to Utilise
the Fund.

18. We also find that N.G.T.
passed further order on 17.09.2024 on noncompliance of the order dated 05.07.2024.
Then, on 04.10.2024, following order was
passed by it:-

"1. It is pointed out to us
that
for
non-handling
and
management
of
solid
waste
effectively and in accordance with
Solid Waste Management Rules,
2016, UP Pollution Control Board
by order dated 03.07.2024 has
imposed
Environmental
Compensation of Rs. 91,25,000/-
upon Nagar Palika Parishad, Khoda
but same has not been deposited by
it till date.
2.
Learned
Counsel
appearing
for
Nagar
Palika
Parishad, Khoda also stated that till
date large quantity of legacy waste
is lying at site, though steps are
being taken for its clearance. It is
further said that so far as daily
generation
of
solid
waste
is
concerned, which is to the extent of
about 105 MT per day, same is
being
regularly
handled
and
processed and is not being dumped
anywhere.
3. Let this fact be verified
by UPPCB and submit a report
within three weeks.
4. We also direct UPPCB
to
take
effective
steps
for
recovery
of
Environmental
Compensation from Nagar Palika
Parishad,
Khoda
by
taking
coercive measures and submit
compliance report.
5 Further, for violation of
environmental
laws,
criminal
prosecution may also be initiated
by UPPCB against responsible
officers
of
Nagar
Palika
Parishad,
Khoda,
and
compliance report be submitted.
6. List on 05.11.2024."

19. It is, therefore, apparent on
record that the petitioner not only being
party to the proceedings before the N.G.T.,
it has been directed by the N.G.T. to take
effective
steps
for
recovery
of
environmental compensation assessed by
the order impugned, by all coercive
measures and submit compliance report.
The N.G.T. has also issued direction for
criminal prosecution of the officers of the
petitioner and submission of compliance
report.

20. In view of above, we are of the
view that if the petitioner is aggrieved by
the assessment of damages/environmental
compensation, either by the committee or
by the U.P. P.C.B., the same having been
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
done in furtherance of various directions
issued by the N.G.T., it has remedy either
to make its say before the N.G.T. with
appropriate submissions and prayers or if it
feels that the N.G.T. had no competence to
entrust any action upon joint committee or
U.P. P.C.B. or that any order passed by the
N.G.T. is not otherwise in accordance with
law, it has a remedy to file an appeal before
the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the
Act of 2010. The writ jurisdiction does not
come in the way at all.

21. In view of above discussion,
we find that challenge made to the orders
passed in furtherance of the orders issued
by the N.G.T. and as a consequence
thereof, cannot sustain in writ jurisdiction
and any relief granted to the petitioner
against the impugned demand would have
an effect of expressly or impliedly staying
or setting aside orders passed by the N.G.T.
This being impermissible in view of
appellate forum being Supreme Court as
per Section 22 of the Act of 2010, we are of
the view that the reliefs claimed in the
instant writ petition, either interim or final,
cannot be granted.

22.

The
writ
petition
is,
accordingly, dismissed, however, without
prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to
approach N.G.T. or Supreme Court for
redressal of its grievance.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 748
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Writ -C No. 43025 of 2018
with
Writ-C Nos 5671 of 2023 & 9440 of 2019

Charan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishal Khandelwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manu Singh

Civil Law- Reference- Revenue Law - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 230 &
231 - Repeal and saving of rights - Suit
instituted under U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and
Land
Reforms
Act,
1950
-
Maintainability of revision or appeal under
repealed Act after enforcement of 2006
Code - Held, right to appeal or revision is
a substantive and vested right - Such
right
continues
unless
expressly
or
impliedly
taken
away
by
the
new
enactment - Section 230(2)(d) saves the
remedy of revision/appeal - Section 231
clarifies that pending cases shall be
decided under old law-reference answered
accordingly. (Paras 14, 15, and 16)

HELD:
Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having gone through the record, we are of
the view that the learned Single Judge, who had
made the reference, had not considered the
provisions of Section 230(2)(d) of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, in its right perspective,
and therefore, while only considering the
provision of Section 231 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 the reference was made. Had the
court been shown the provisions of Section
230(2)(d) of the U.P. 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