# Sadhu Saran Chaubey v. Addl. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal & Ors - **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 979 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-11-07 - **Case number:** Writ - C No. 1003822 of 2002 - **Bench:** Irshad Ali - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sadhu-saran-chaubey-v-addl-commissioner-devi-patan-mandal-ors-52777 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Abolition and Land Reforms Act is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed in a suit filed under Section 229-B of the Act. HEADNOTE U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - ss.229-B, 229-D, 333 - Declaratory suit - Interim order directing maintenance of status quo - Interlocutory order - Revision against interlocutory order - Entertainability - Jurisdiction of revisional authority - Requirement of reasons. HELD: Interim order of status quo passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in the suit filed under Section 229-B of the Act - It was an interlocutory order and no final order was passed on the interim 980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES injunction application - Revision against an interlocutory order not maintainable - Revisional order does not contain any reason - Order passed by the revisional court per se illegal and without jurisdiction - Writ petition against an order without jurisdiction is maintainable - Impugned order quashed - Writ petition allowed. [Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13] (E-5) CASE LAW CITED Mohd. Muslim and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ-C No. 10523 of 2024 List of Acts U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 List of Keyword Interlocutory order; Revision not maintainable; Declaratory suit; Interim injunction; Status quo order; Jurisdiction of revisional authority; Absence of reasons; Per se illegal order; Revenue proceedings. CASE ARISING FROM Order dated 02.05.2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, in revision arising out of the interlocutory order dated 20.04.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Appearances for Parties Advs For Petitioner: N.A. Siddiqui, Abha Srivastava, Girish Chandra Verma. Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., R.P. Dwivedi, R.N. Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Singh. ## Text 11 All. Sadhu Saran Chaubey Vs. Addl. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal & Ors. 979 (a) the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders, (b) adjudication of any other rights arising out of consolidation proceedings, and (c) adjudication of any right in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 31. In view of the above, it is clear that any adjudication done with regard to land lying in the area in which a notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been issued operates a bar of reagitating in any other revenue or civil Court. Second limb of Section also creates a bar with regard to adjudication of any other right regarding which proceedings could or ought to have been taken under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The provision contains the principles of resjudicata as well as principles of constructive res-judicata. 32. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The judgment relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent in the case of Ram Nath (Supra) is distinguishable and is not attracted to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 33. On overall consideration of the material on record, as also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgments relied upon by both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are wholly illegal and are liable to be quashed. 34. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders dated 26.7.1995 and 19.6.1997 are hereby quashed. 35. No order as to costs. ---------- (2025) 11 ILRA 979 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 07.11.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ - C No. 1003822 of 2002 Sadhu Saran Chaubey ...Petitioner Versus Addl. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: N.A. Siddiqui, Abha Srivastava, Girish Chandra Verma Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., R.P. Dwivedi, R.N. Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Singh ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether revision u/s 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed in a suit filed under Section 229-B of the Act. HEADNOTE U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - ss.229-B, 229-D, 333 - Declaratory suit - Interim order directing maintenance of status quo - Interlocutory order - Revision against interlocutory order - Entertainability - Jurisdiction of revisional authority - Requirement of reasons. HELD: Interim order of status quo passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in the suit filed under Section 229-B of the Act - It was an interlocutory order and no final order was passed on the interim 980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES injunction application - Revision against an interlocutory order not maintainable - Revisional order does not contain any reason - Order passed by the revisional court per se illegal and without jurisdiction - Writ petition against an order without jurisdiction is maintainable - Impugned order quashed - Writ petition allowed. [Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13] (E-5) CASE LAW CITED Mohd. Muslim and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ-C No. 10523 of 2024 List of Acts U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 List of Keyword Interlocutory order; Revision not maintainable; Declaratory suit; Interim injunction; Status quo order; Jurisdiction of revisional authority; Absence of reasons; Per se illegal order; Revenue proceedings. CASE ARISING FROM Order dated 02.05.2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, in revision arising out of the interlocutory order dated 20.04.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Appearances for Parties Advs For Petitioner: N.A. Siddiqui, Abha Srivastava, Girish Chandra Verma. Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., R.P. Dwivedi, R.N. Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Singh. (Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.) 1. Heard Sri G.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Kumar Pandey and Sri Amitesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent and Sri R.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 2.5.2002, passed by the respondent No.1, contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that in the year 1985, a Will deed was executed in favour of respondent No.5 by the deceased Ram Abhilakh. The same was cancelled by the deceased in the same year. The second Will deed was executed in favour of respondent No.4-Bhagwan Das by the deceased Ram Abhilakh. Third and last Will deed was executed by deceased Ram Abhilak in favour of the petitioner, who died on 19.2.2001. The respondent No.5 Bajrang Bahadur got mutated his name in revenue records by filing mutation application before Tehsildar Payagpur, District Shravasti by concealing the Will deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The Tehsildar passed ex-parte order on the mutation application. 4. The petitioner filed a declaratory suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act alongwith the interim relief application under Section 229-D of the said Act before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bahraich who passed an interim order on 20.4.2002 to the effect that the land in question will not be transferred to anyone and in the meantime, status quo was directed to be maintained. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.5 without having any locus, filed revision under Section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the interlocutory order dated 20.4.2002 before the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, District Gonda who entertained the revision and stayed the operation of the order dated 11 All. Sadhu Saran Chaubey Vs. Addl. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal & Ors. 981 20.4.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in declaratory suit vide his order dated 2.5.2002. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed in the case filed under Section 229-B is an interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable and is wholly without jurisdiction against that order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. Next submission is that the order is an unreasoned order, therefore, is not maintainable in the eyes of law. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 of a judgment passed in Writ-C No.10523 of 2024 (Mohd Muslim & others Vs. State of U.P. & others). 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that against an interim order passed in the revision, writ petition is not maintainable, therefore, the writ petition being misconceived, is liable to be dismissed. 8. After having heard the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. 9. On perusal of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 20.4.2002, it is apparent on the face of it that it is an interlocutory order and no final order has been passed on the interim injunction application, therefore, revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable. 10. On perusal of the order passed by the revisional court, it is apparent on the face of it that it does not contain reason in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Mohd Muslim (Supra), relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under :- "37. In this view of the matter, the order against which the revision has been entertained and also allowed, cannot be said to be an order relating to a 'suit or proceeding decided'. 38. The condition precedent for the entertainability of a revision under Section 210 of the Revenue Code, having thus not been fulfilled, the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners with regard to the revision being not entertainable, are held to be sustainable. 39. The order dated 20.01.2024 passed by respondent no.2, Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj in Revision No.1369 of 2022 is, therefore, held to be legally unsustainable, on the point of entertainability of the revision." 11. On its perusal, it is apparent that against an interlocutory order passed in an interim injunction application, revision is not maintainable, therefore, the order appears to be per se illegal and is liable to be set aside. It is also apparent on the face of it that it does not record any reason in passing the impugned order. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has no bearing and the writ petition against an order, wholly without jurisdiction, is always maintainable. 12. The order passed on 2.5.2002 is wholly without jurisdiction and the revision was not entertainable in the eyes of law against the interlocutory order. 982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 13. In view of the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 2.5.2002 is hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 14. No order as to costs. ---------- (2025) 11 ILRA 982 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 18.11.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ - C No. 1004000 of 2006 Ram Khelwan ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Bajrangi Verma Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Jyotinjay Verma Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to challenge to orders passed under S. 122-B and S. 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, relating to alleged unauthorized occupation of Gaon Sabha land and whether instead of eviction, damages could be awarded and land settled, where the petitioner claimed possession and construction prior to commencement of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Headnotes U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Ss. 9, 122-B, 123, 125-A, 333 - Unauthorized occupation - Old residential construction - Possession prior to commencement of Act - Remedy of eviction vs. award of damages - Gaon Sabha land - Residential use - Long continuous possession - Construction prior to U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Failure of authorities to consider evidence - Cursory findings set aside - Proceedings under S. 122-B - Scope - Where construction is old and residential - Interest of justice - Settlement of land on payment of damages instead of eviction - Exercise of writ jurisdiction - Interference justified where authorities ignore settled principles and binding precedents. Held: Instead of eviction, the authority could have awarded damages as an alternative relief in lieu of eviction, taking into consideration, the duration of occupancy on the land in question as well as considering the nature of the unauthorized occupation - If someone is in authorized occupation over a small piece of land of Gaon Sabha since long and has constructed his house then instead of eviction proper relief is to award damages - In the present case, the petitioner is in possession over the land before commencement of UPZA & LR Act; on the said land he constructed his house; and is still living with his entire family members and therefore instead of eviction, proper remedy is to award damages - Interest of justice would be served by directing the petitioner to pay damages to the tune of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of settlement of land in dispute - Upon deposit of the said amount within six months, the land shall stand settled with the petitioner and the impugned orders dated 27.07.2006 and judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 shall stand set aside - Failure to deposit would result in "this order shall stand automatically vacated and the writ petition should be deemed to have been dismissed" - Writ petition allowed.(Paras 14-21) (E-7) Case Law Cited Manno Prasad v. Upper Collector (Prashasan), Kanpur Dehat & Anr., 2009 (27) LCD 812; D.C.M. Limited v. The Collector, Ghaziabad & Ors., 2007 (25) LCD 1194; Bhudaee v. Collector, 2005 (98) RD 741. List of Acts U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 List of Keywords Gaon Sabha; Abadi land; Unauthorized occupation; Damages; Eviction; Settlement of land; Continuous possession; Residential purpose; Interim order; Interest of justice.