# Smt. Jhinka Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 265
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-12
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-jhinka-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48658
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 - UP
Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 24(4) &
210 - Writ - Maintainability - Alternative
remedy of revision u/s 210 - Amendment
in 2019 - Where the amended provision of
S.
24(4)
provide
'the
order
of
Commissioner shall be final subject to
provision of S. 210, unamended provision
provide it without any subjection
-
Apparent conflict, how far restrict the
revisional power of Board of Revenue -
Held, mere fact that there is no further
appeal against the order passed by the
Commissioner in an appeal under subsection (4) of Section 24 would not be
held to create a bar in invocation of the
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revisional jurisdiction of the Board of
Revenue under section 210 of the Code -
The provision 'the order of Commissioner
shall be final' only mean that the order
passed in appeal under sub-section (4)
would not be subject to any second appeal
- High Court held writ petition not
maintainable on the ground of alternative
remedy of revision. (Para 21, 22, 48, 49
and 66)
B. Interpretation of statute - Conflicting
statutory
provisions
-
Harmonious
construction
-
Applicability
-
The
provisions of a statute are to be read in a
way that renders them compatible and not
contradictory - While interpreting two
inconsistent,
or,
obviously
repugnant
provisions of an Act, the courts should
make an effort to so interpret the
provisions as to harmonise them so that
the purpose of the Act may be given effect
to and both the provisions may be allowed
to operate without rendering either of
them otiose.(Para 29 and 31)
C. Interpretation of statute - Conflicting
statutory
provisions
-
Rule
of
ex
visceribus actus - Presumption against
inconsistency - Rule of 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 - 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. (Para 53 and 60)
Writ petition dismissed (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,671 of 73,019. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39671 for what follows._

6 All. Smt. Jhinka Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
265
Supreme Court dated 8 May 1997, at least
some cogent material ought to have been
placed on the record which would have
warranted the Court to scrutinize the
matter. In the absence thereof, the Court
cannot proceed either on the basis of
hypothesis or surmise or come to a
conclusion that the finding of fact recorded
by the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest was erroneous.

For these reasons, we see no reason to
entertain the writ petition. The petition is,
accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs."

17. Looking into the facts of the case as
well as the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court as referred above and the judgment
of coordinate Bench of this Court this
Court finds that the relief so claimed by the
petitioner cannot be granted to its as
admittedly the petitioner's Saw Mill is
within 10 kms of the forest land and the
said fact has also not been disputed by the
petitioner and further the issue relating to
the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court
contained in the order dated 8.5.1997, the
amendment so made in Uttar Pradesh
Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills
(6th Amendment) Rules, 2017 and in the
light of the fact that writ petition pertains to
the year 2011 and we are in 2022 as much
water has flown therefrom.

18. Resultantly, present petition is
dismissed. However, leaving it open to the
petitioner to approach the competent
authorities for the grant of license as per
the Uttar Pradesh Establishment and
Regulation of Saw Mills Rules 1978 as
amended from time to time and in vogue
for the grant of license of running Saw
Mills and in case the petitioner approaches
the competent authority as envisaged in the
Uttar
Pradesh
Establishment
and
Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 as
amended from time to time as in vogue
after
completing
the
formalities
so
prescribed therein this Court has no reason
to disbelieve the fact that the application so
preferred by the petitioner shall be
considered in accordance with law.

19. With the aforesaid observations,
present petition stands dismissed.
----------
(2022)06ILR A265
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 25616 OF 2021

Smt. Jhinka Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, Sri Piyush Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Sri Shrawan
Kumar Tripathi

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 - UP
Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 24(4) &
210 - Writ - Maintainability - Alternative
remedy of revision u/s 210 - Amendment
in 2019 - Where the amended provision of
S.
24(4)
provide
'the
order
of
Commissioner shall be final subject to
provision of S. 210, unamended provision
provide it without any subjection
-
Apparent conflict, how far restrict the
revisional power of Board of Revenue -
Held, mere fact that there is no further
appeal against the order passed by the
Commissioner in an appeal under subsection (4) of Section 24 would not be
held to create a bar in invocation of the
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revisional jurisdiction of the Board of
Revenue under section 210 of the Code -
The provision 'the order of Commissioner
shall be final' only mean that the order
passed in appeal under sub-section (4)
would not be subject to any second appeal
- High Court held writ petition not
maintainable on the ground of alternative
remedy of revision. (Para 21, 22, 48, 49
and 66)
B. Interpretation of statute - Conflicting
statutory
provisions
-
Harmonious
construction
-
Applicability
-
The
provisions of a statute are to be read in a
way that renders them compatible and not
contradictory - While interpreting two
inconsistent,
or,
obviously
repugnant
provisions of an Act, the courts should
make an effort to so interpret the
provisions as to harmonise them so that
the purpose of the Act may be given effect
to and both the provisions may be allowed
to operate without rendering either of
them otiose.(Para 29 and 31)
C. Interpretation of statute - Conflicting
statutory
provisions
-
Rule
of
ex
visceribus actus - Presumption against
inconsistency - Rule of 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 - 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. (Para 53 and 60)
Writ petition dismissed (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Vijay Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2020
146 RD 207
2. Krishan Kumar Vs St. of Raj. & ors. (1991) 4
SCC 258
3. Sultana Begum Vs Prem Chand Jain; (1997) 1
SCC 373
4. Jagdish Singh Vs Lt. Governor, Delhi & ors.
(1997) 4 SCC 435
5. Anwar Hasan Khan Vs Mohd. Shafi & ors.
(2001) 8 SCC 540
6. British Airways Plc. Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2002) 2
SCC 95
7. D.R.Yadav & anr. Vs R.K.Singh & anr.; (2003)
7 SCC 110
8. Suresh Nanda Vs C.B.I.; (2008) 3 SCC 674
9. Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs Essar Power
Ltd.; (2008) 4 SCC 755
10. Sanjay Ramdas Patil Vs Sanjay & ors. (2021)
10 SCC 306
11. Venkataramana Devaru Vs St. of Mysore;
AIR 1958 SC 255
12. Canada Sugar Refining Co. Vs R.; 1898 AC
735
13. M. Pentiah Vs Muddala Veeramallappa; AIR
1961 SC 1107
14. Gammon India Ltd. Vs U.O.I.; (1974) 1 SCC
596
15. Mysore SRTC Vs Mirja Khasim Ali Beg;
(1977) 2 SCC 457
16. V. Tulasamma Vs Sesha Reddy; (1977) 3
SCC 99
17. Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs Suresh Chand;
(1978) 2 SCC 144
18. CIT Vs National Taj Traders; (1980) 1 SCC
370
19. Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. Vs State
of W.B.; AIR 1962 SC 1044
20. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. Vs
State of U.P.; AIR 1961 SC 1170
21. Union of India Vs Filip Tiago De Gama of
Vedem Vasco De Gama; (1990) 1 SCC 277
22. Towne Vs Eisner; 245 US 418, 425 (1918)
24. Lenigh Valley Coal Co. Vs Yensavage; 218
FR 547,553
6 All. Smt. Jhinka Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
267
25. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Hindustan
Bulk Carriers; (2003) 3 SCC 57
26. Whitney Vs IRC; 1926 AC 37
27. CIT Vs S. Teja Singh; AIR 1959 SC 352
28. Gursahai Saigal Vs CIT; AIR 1963 SC 1062
29. Salmon Vs Duncombe; (1886) 11 AC 627
30. Curtis Vs Stovin; (1889) 22 QBD 513
31. S. Teja Singh case,
32. Nokes Vs Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries;
(1940) 3 All ER 549
33. Pye Vs Minister for Lands for NSW; (1954) 3
All ER 514
34. Mohan Kumar Singhania Vs U.O.I; 1992
Supp (1) SCC 594
35. R.S. Raghunath Vs St. of Karn.; (1992) 1
SCC 335
36. Shah Chaturbhuj Vs Mauji Ram; AIR 1938
All. 456 (FB)
37. Smt. Krishna Devi Vs Board of Revenue;
1972 RD 228
38. Caesar Griffin's case; Fed. Cas. No. 5,815

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Piyush Shukla appearing
along with Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Neeraj
Tripathi,
learned
Additional
Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank
Shekhar Singh, Sri J.P.N.Raj, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri
Surya Bhan Singh, learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents, Sri
Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for
the respondent no. 4 and Sri Shrawan
Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 5.

2. The present petition has been filed
seeking to assail the order dated 08.09.2021
passed
by
the
Commissioner
Basti,
Division Basti/respondent no. 2 in an
appeal filed under sub-section (4) of
Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
20061 being Appeal No. 00631/2020 and
the earlier order dated 26.10.2019 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Tehsil
Harraiya, District Basti/respondent no. 3 in
Case No. 06482/2019 under Section 24 of
the Code whereby the application of the
respondent no. 5 under Section 24 of the
Code has been allowed.

3. An objection with regard to the
entertainability of the writ petition was
raised on behalf of the State respondents by
pointing out that the order passed in appeal
under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the
Code is subject to the remedy of revision
under Section 210 of the Code.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has
sought to refute the aforesaid contention by
submitting that the remedy of revision
under Section 210 of the Code is available
only in a situation where no appeal lies and
in the instant case since the petitioner is
seeking to assail an order passed in appeal
under sub-section (4) of Section 24, the
remedy of revision would not be available.

5. The question which thus falls for
consideration in the present case is as to
whether an order passed in an appeal under
sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code,
would be subject to a revision under
Section 210 of the Code,

6. Counsel for the parties have
referred to the relevant statutory provisions
under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code,
2006 and the amendments made to the
Code in terms of U.P. Revenue Code
(Amendment) Act, 2016 [U.P. Act No. 4 of
2016]
and
the
U.P.
Revenue
Code
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Amendment) Act, 2019 [U.P. Act No. 7 of
2019]. For ease of reference the relevant
statutory
provisions
under
the
U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 together with their
legislative history, would be required to be
adverted to.

7. The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Bill,
2006 was passed by the Uttar Pradesh
Legislative Assembly and assented to by
the President on 29 November, 2012 and
published in the U.P. Gazette (Extra.), Part
I, Section (ka) on 12 December 2012, vide
Vishay Anubhag-1-Noti. No. 1044 (2) 179v-12-1 (ka) 33/2006, dated 12 December,
2012 as U.P. Act No. 8 of 2012. Vide Noti.
No.
1879/1-1-2015-15(1)/1998-19T.C.III
dated 18 December 2015, Sections 1, 4-19,
233 and 234 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 (U.P. Act No. 8 of 2012) came into
force on 18 December, 2015 and the
remaining provisions of the said Act came
into force on 11 February 2016.

8. The provisions with regard to
settlement
of
boundary
disputes
are
contained under Section 24 of the Code.
Section 24 of the Code, as it originally
stood, is being extracted below :-

"24.
Disputes
regarding
boundaries.─(1)
The
Sub-Divisional
Officer may, on his own motion or on an
application made in this behalf by a person
interested, decide, by summary inquiry, any
dispute regarding boundaries on the basis
of existing survey maps or, where they
have been revised in accordance with the
provisions
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, on
the basis of such maps, but if this is not
possible, the boundaries shall be fixed on
the basis of actual possession.

(2) If in the course of an inquiry into a
dispute under sub-section (1), the SubDivisional Officer is unable to satisfy
himself as to which party is in possession
or if it is shown that possession has been
obtained by wrongful dispossession of the
lawful occupant, the Sub-Divisional Officer
shall─

(a) in the first case, ascertain by
summary inquiry who is the person best
entitled to the property, and shall put such
person in possession;

(b) in the second case, put the person
so dispossessed in possession, and for that
purpose use or cause to be used such force
as may be necessary and shall then fix the
boundary accordingly.

(3) Every proceeding under this
section shall, as far as possible, be
concluded by the Sub-Divisional Officer
within six months from the date of the
application.

(4) Any person aggrieved by the order
of the Sub-Divisional Officer may prefer an
appeal before the Commissioner within 30
days of the date of such order. The order of
the Commissioner shall be final."

9. The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
Rules, 20162 were made in exercise of
powers under Section 233 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 [U.P. Act No. 8 of
2012], read with Section 21 of the U.P.
General Clauses Act, 1904. The English
translation
of
the
Rules,
2016
was
published in the U.P. Gazette, Part 4,
Section (Kha) dt. 10.02.2016. Rule 22 of
the aforesaid Rules, which relates to
settlement of boundary dispute, is as
follows :-

"22. Settlement of boundary dispute
(Section 24).- (1) Every application for
settlement of boundary dispute under
Section 24 (1) of the Code shall be made to
the Sub-Divisional-Officer and it shall
contain the following, particulars:
6 All. Smt. Jhinka Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
269

(a)
The
names,
parentage
and
addresses of the parties;

(b) Plot number, area and boundaries
of the land, along with its location;

(c) Precise nature of the dispute.

(2) No application for demarcation of
boundaries under Section 24 (1) of the
Code shall be entertained unless it is
accompanied by certified extracts from the
maps,
khasras
and
Record-of-Rights
(khatauni)
on
the
basis
of
which
demarcation is sought, and the required
amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 1000/-
per survey number of the applicant as fee
for demarcation has been paid by the
applicant.

(3)
If
the
application
is
for
demarcation of two or more than two
adjoining
plots,
only
one
set
of
demarcation fee shall be payable but
where the survey numbers sought to be
demarcated are not adjoining, separate
sets of demarcation fee shall be paid.

(4) On the receipt of the application
the concerned official shall check the
application
as
to
whether
the
requirements have been fulfilled or not. If
there is any defect of formal nature, the
applicant
or
his
counsel
shall
be
permitted to remove the defect at once
but where the requirements of the
application have not been fulfilled, the
applicant shall be afforded opportunity as
sought for to fulfil the requirements.

(5) As soon as the requirements are
fulfilled the official concerned shall
register the application in the register
concerned and put up the same before the
Sub-Divisional-Officer for appropriate
order.

(6) The Sub-Divisional-Officer shall
pass order on the same day or on the next
working day, directing the Revenue
Inspector or other revenue officer to
demarcate the plot or plots as the case
may be after fixing a date and serving the
notice in respect thereof to all the tenureholders concerned. This exercise shall be
completed within a period of one month
from the date of order passed by SubDivisional-Officer.

(7) The notice under sub-rule (6) of
this rule shall be served on the concerned
tenure-holder or in his absence on his
adult family member. The notice shall
also be served on the Chairman of the
Land Management Committee.

(8) At the time of demarcation of the
plot the spot-memo shall be prepared by
the Revenue Inspector or other Revenue
Officer and the same shall be signed by
all the parties concerned and by the
Chairman of the Land Management
Committee or any two independent
witnesses present at the time of the
demarcation. If any party refuses to sign
the spot-memo, the endorsement to the
effect shall be made by the Revenue
Inspector.

(9) The Revenue Inspector or other
Revenue Officer shall submit his report
of demarcation with spot-memo within a
period of fifteen days from the date of
demarcation. The name and address of
the every affected party shall be disclosed
in the report.

(10) On receipt of the report under
sub-rule (9), the notices shall be issued
within one week to all the affected parties
inviting the objections on the report and
the date shall be fixed which shall not be
later than 15 days from the date of
issuing the notice.

(11) On the date fixed or on any other
date to which the hearing is adjourned, the
Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the
dispute
regarding
the
boundaries
in
accordance with the provisions of the subsection (2) of the Section 24 of the Code
and pass the appropriate order after
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
considering the report and the objections, if
any, filed against the report and affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned.

(12) If the report is confirmed by the
Sub-Divisional
Officer,
the
boundary
pillars shall be fixed accordingly within a
period of one week and report in respect
thereof shall be submitted which shall be
part of the record.

(13) Where boundaries of plots/survey
numbers are not identifiable or damaged,
due to alluvion or diluvion or heavy rain or
for any other reasons, the Sub-Divisional
Officer may, on the application of the
Chairman
of
the
Village
Revenue
Committee of the village or on the report of
Revenue Inspector or Lekhpal of the Circle
or on the joint application signed by all the
tenure-holders
concerned,
direct,
by
general or special order in writing, the
Revenue Inspector or Lekhpal concerned to
demarcate the boundaries on the spot on the
basis of the existing survey map or where it
is not possible, on the basis of the
possession and to redress the grievance, if
any, on the basis of the conciliation in
consultation with the Village Revenue
Committee. The Revenue Inspector or the
Lekhpal shall comply with the such order
within two weeks from the date of the order
and submit the report thereof to the SubDivisional Officer.

(14) If any party is aggrieved by the
demarcation under sub-rule (13) of this
rule,
he
may
move
application
for
demarcation of the boundaries under subsection (1) of Section 24 of the Code and
the demarcation under sub-rule (13) will be
subject to demarcation under sub-section
(1) of Section 24 of the Code.

(15) The Sub Divisional Officer, at the
time
of
passing
the order
for
the
demarcation under section 24 of the Code
or under sub-rule (13) of this rule, may
direct the Station Officer of the police
station concerned to make the police force
available for maintaining the law and order
on the spot at the time of demarcation.

(16) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall
make an endeavour to conclude the
proceeding within the period specified in
Section 24 (3) and if the proceeding is not
concluded within such period the reason for
the same shall be recorded."

10. The power to call for the records,
conferred on the Board of Revenue3 or the
Commissioner, in respect of any suit or
proceedings decided by any subordinate
revenue court, is provided for under
Section 210 of the Code. Section 210 of the
Code, as it originally stood, is as follows :-

"210
Power
to
call
for
the
records.―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, or
where an appeal lies but has not been
preferred, 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.
6 All. Smt. Jhinka Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
271

(3) No application under this section
shall be entertained after the expiry of a
period of thirty days from the date of the
order sought to be revised or from the date
of commencement of this Code, whichever
is later."

11. The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code,
2006 was amended in terms of the Uttar
Pradesh Revenue Code (Amendment) Act,
2016 [U.P. Act No. 4 of 2016]. The
amendments made to Section 24 and
Section 210 in the amending Act of 2016
are as follows :-

"18. Amendment of Section 24.─ In
Section 24 of the said Code─

(a) in Hindi version, in sub-section (1),
for the word "Lo&çsj.kk" the word "Lo&çsj.kk"
and for the words "tkap }kjk fofu'p; dj
ldrk gS" the words "tkap }kjk dj ldrk gS"
shall be substituted;

(b) in sub-section (3), for the words
"six months" the words "three months"
shall be substituted."

"162. Amendment of Section 210.─
In Section 210 of the said Code─

(a) for the figures and words "210. The
Board" the figures, brackets and words
"210. (1) The Board" shall be substituted.

(b) in sub-section (1), the words and
punctuation mark "or where an appeal lies
but has not been preferred," shall be
omitted;

(c) after sub-section (2) and before
sub-section (3), the following explanation
shall be inserted, namely ─

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.

(d) in sub-section (3), for the words
"thirty days" the words "sixty days" shall
be substituted."

12. The provisions under Section 24
and Section 210 consequent to the
amendment made in terms of the U.P. Act
No. 4 of 2016, stood as follows :-

"24.
Disputes
regarding
boundaries.─(1)
The
Sub-Divisional
Officer may, on his own motion or on an
application made in this behalf by a person
interested, decide, by summary inquiry, any
dispute regarding boundaries on the basis
of existing survey map or, where the same
is not possible in accordance with the
provisions
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, on the
basis of such maps.

(2) If in the course of an inquiry into a
dispute under sub-section (1), the SubDivisional Offices is unable to satisfy
himself as to which party is in possession
or if it is shown that possession has been
obtained by wrongful dispossession of the
lawful occupant, the Sub-Divisional Officer
shall─

(a) in the first case, ascertain by
summary inquiry who is the person best
entitled to the property, and shall put such
person in possession;

(b) in the second case, put the person
so dispossessed in possession, and for that
purpose use or cause to be used such force
as may be necessary and shall then fix the
boundary accordingly.

(3) Every proceeding under this
section shall, as far as possible, be
concluded by the Sub-Divisional Officer
within three months from the date of the
application.
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(4) Any person aggrieved by the order
of the Sub-Divisional Officer may prefer an
appeal before the Commissioner within 30
days of the date of such order. The order of
the Commissioner shall be final."

"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."

13. The U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
was subject to further amendments made in
terms of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
(Amendment) Act, 2019 [U.P. Act No. 7 of
2019], which was deemed to come into
force on March 10, 2019.

14. In terms of the aforesaid
amending Act of 2019, the amendment of
Section 24 of the U.P. Act No. 8 of 2012
was made in the following terms :-

"2. In Section 24 of the Uttar
Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 hereinafter
referred to as the principal Act, in subsection (4) for the words, "the order of
the Commissioner shall be final," the
words "The order of the Commissioner
shall, subject to the provisions of Section
210, be final" shall be substituted."

15. There was some inconsistency in
the Hindi version of the language of
Section 210 inasmuch as the words used
in sub-Section (1) where "dksbZ vihy ugha
gqbZ" as against the language in the
English version which was "in which no
appeal lies". The aforesaid inconsistency
was
removed
by
making
suitable
amendment in the Hindi version of
Section 210 of the principal Act by
providing as follows :-

"19. In Section 210 of the principal
Act, in the Hindi version, in sub-section
(1) for the words "dksbZ vihy ugha gqbZ" the
words "dksbZ vihy ugha gks ldrh" shall be
substituted."

16. The provisions contained under
Section 24 and Section 210 consequent to
the amendments made as per the terms of
the U.P. Act No. 7 of 2019 now stand as
under :-
6 All. Smt. Jhinka Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
273

"24.
Disputes
regarding
boundaries.─ (1) The Sub-Divisional
Officer may, on his own motion or on an
application made in this behalf by a person
interested, decide, by summary inquiry, any
dispute regarding boundaries on the basis
of existing survey map or, where the same
is not possible in accordance with the
provisions
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, on the
basis of such maps.

(2) If in the course of an inquiry into a
dispute under sub-section (1), the SubDivisional Offices is unable to satisfy
himself as to which party is in possession
or if it is shown that possession has been
obtained by wrongful dispossession of the
lawful occupant, the Sub-Divisional Officer
shall─

(a) in the first case, ascertain by
summary inquiry who is the person best
entitled to the property, and shall put such
person in possession;

(b) in the second case, put the person
so dispossessed in possession, and for that
purpose use or cause to be used such force
as may be necessary and shall then fix the
boundary accordingly.

(3) Every proceeding under this
section shall, as far as possible, be
concluded by the Sub-Divisional Officer
within three months from the date of the
application.

(4) Any person aggrieved by the order
of the Sub-Divisional Officer may prefer an
appeal before the Commissioner within 30
days of the date of such order. The order of
the Commissioner shall, subject to the
provisions of Section 210, be final."

"210
Power
to
call
for
the
records.―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."

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has made his submissions as under :-

17.1 As per the unamended provisions,
sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code
provided the remedy of an appeal against
the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer
passed under Section 24 and the order
passed in appeal by the Commissioner was
to be final. The remedy of revision under
Section 210 of the Code was available only
in a case in which no appeal lies, and
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore since sub-section (4) of Section
24 provided for an appeal, there was to be
no further remedy of a revision available
thereagainst under Section 210 of the Code.

17.2. Consequent to the amendment
made to sub-section (4) of Section 24 as
per the U.P. Act No. 7 of 2019, the finality
attached to the order of the Commissioner
continues subject to the provisions of
Section 210 of the Code. The order of the
Commissioner under sub-section (4) of
Section 24 has been made subject to the
provisions of Section 210 of the Code and
as per terms of Section 210 the remedy of
revision being available only in a case
where no appeal lies, the order passed by
the Commissioner under sub-section (4) of
Section 24 would not be amenable to a
further remedy of revision under Section
210 of the Code.

18.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has sought to refer to the
corresponding provisions with regard to
settlement of boundary disputes under
Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 (now repealed) and the provisions
with regard to the remedy of revision
under Section 219 of the aforesaid Act to
contend that even under the earlier
statutory provisions, the order passed
under Section 41 relating to a boundary
dispute was subject to an appeal under
Section 210 and the remedy of revision
under Section 219 was not available
thereafter. To support his submissions,
reliance has been placed upon the
judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar
and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others4

19. Controverting the aforesaid
submissions, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State respondents
has submitted as under :-

19.1 Even under the unamended
provisions, the finality attached to the order
passed by the Commissioner in an appeal
under sub-section (4) of Section 24 could
not be held to restrict the revisional
jurisdiction conferred on the Board under
Section 210; the order of the Commissioner
which was held to be final only meant that
there was no further right of an appeal
against such an order.

19.2 The amending Act of 2019 has
made the order of the Commissioner
subject to the provisions of Section 210,
which clearly goes to show that the finality
attached to the order of the Commissioner
passed in appeal has been made subject to
the exercise of the revisional powers by the
Board under Section 210.

19.3 The amending Act of 2019 has
clarified the position by providing in
explicit terms that the order of the
Commissioner passed in an appeal under
sub-section (4) of Section 24, is final,
subject to the revisional powers to be
exercised by the Board under Section 210.

19.4 The restriction contained under
Section 210 providing for the remedy of a
revision only in a case "in which no appeal
lies" would not be attracted since the
question under consideration is with regard
to the availability of the remedy of a
revision against the order passed in appeal
under sub-section (4) of Section 24 against
which no further appeal lies. In this regard
attention is drawn to the Third Schedule of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to point out
that in respect of proceedings relating to
disputes
regarding
boundaries
under
Section 24, the order of the Sub-Divisional
Officer is subject to an appeal before the
Commissioner and there is no provision
with regard to a further appeal. It is
therefore contended that since no appeal
lies against the appellate order of the
Commissioner under sub-section (4) of
6 All. Smt. Jhinka Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
275
Section 24, the remedy of revision under
Section 210 would not be barred.

19.5 The decision in the case of Vijay
Kumar and others (supra), sought to be
relied upon by the petitioner, has been
rendered in the context of the provisions
under the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901
(now repealed). The scheme of the
statutory
provisions
under
the
U.P.
Revenue Code 2006, consequent to the
amendments made in the year 2019, being
entirely different the aforesaid decision
would not be applicable in the facts of the
present case.

20. Learned Additional Advocate
General has further placed reliance on the
settled principle of statutory construction
that even in a case where there appears to
be
some
inconsistency
between
two
statutory provisions, the principle of
harmonious construction would have to be
applied so as to avoid a head on clash and
the provisions of one section of a statute
cannot be read in a manner so as to render
the provisions under the other section as
otiose. It is also contended that the
provisions under Section 210 pertaining to
the revisional powers of the Board are of a
general nature and the same cannot be held
to override the provisions under Section 24
(4) which are of a special nature and relate
specifically to the subject matter relating to
boundary disputes. To support the aforesaid
submissions, reliance is placed upon the
decisions in Krishan Kumar Vs. State of
Rajasthan and others, Sultana Begum
Vs. Prem Chand Jain, Jagdish Singh Vs.
Lt. Governor, Delhi and others, Anwar
Hasan Khan Vs. Mohd. Shafi and others,
British Airways Plc. Vs. Union of India
and others, D.R.Yadav and another Vs.
R.K.Singh and another, Suresh Nanda
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Essar
Power Ltd. and Sanjay Ramdas Patil Vs.
Sanjay and others.

21. In order to appreciate the rival
contentions, the provisions contained under
sub-section (4) of Section 24, as they stood
prior to the amendment brought about by
the U.P. Act No. 7 of 2019 and post the
amendment, would have to be considered
in juxtaposition, as follows :-

22. Under the pre-amended provision
the order of the Commissioner passed in an
appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 24,
against the order of the Sub-Divisional
Officer under sub-section (1) of Section 24,
was to be final. The amending Act of 2019
has made the finality attached to the order
of the Commissioner under sub-section (4)
subject to the provisions of Section 210.

23. Section 210, as it stands after the
amendment brought about by the U.P. Act
No. 4 of 2016, empowers the Board or the
Commissioner to call for the record of any
suit or proceedings decided by any
Pre-amendment
Post-amendment
Section
24
(4).─Any
person
aggrieved
by
the
order of the SubDivisional
Officer
may
prefer
an
appeal before the
Commissioner
within 30 days of
the date of such
order. The order of
the
Commissioner
shall be final.
Section
24
(4).─Any
person
aggrieved
by
the
order of the SubDivisional
Officer
may
prefer
an
appeal before the
Commissioner
within 30 days of
the date of such
order. The order of
the
Commissioner
shall subject to the
provisions
of
Section
210
be
final.
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
subordinate revenue court "in which no
appeal lies" for the purpose of satisfying
itself as to the legality or propriety of any
order passed in such suit or proceedings.

24. The Board or the Commissioner,
may pass such order in the case as it thinks
fit, if the 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.

25. It would therefore be seen that
under Section 210, the Board or the
Commissioner, may exercise the power to
call for the record of any suit or
proceedings decided by any subordinate
revenue
court,
under
the
following
conditions :-

(i) where no appeal lies; and

(ii) the 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 thereafter pass such
order in the case as it or he thinks fit.

26. A plain reading of the aforesaid
provisions at first blush would suggest that
the remedy of a revision under Section 210
being available in a case where no appeal
lies, the order passed by the Commissioner
under sub-section (4) of Section 24 would
not be revisable before the Board under
Section 210.

27. The aforesaid proposition, though
seemingly attractive, would have to be
examined in the context of the amendment
made to sub-section (4) of Section 24 by
the amending Act of 2019 in terms of
which the finality attached to the order of
the Commissioner passed in the appeal has
been made subject to the provisions of
Section 210.

28. The provisions contained under
sub-section (4) of Section 24, as they stand
post the amendment of the year 2019,
whereby the finality attached to the order
passed by the Commissioner in appeal has
been made subject to the provisions of
Section 210, has to be read together with
the apparently conflicting provisions under
Section 210 which contains an interdict that
the revisional powers thereunder are to be
exercised where no appeal lies.

29. It is a settled principle of statutory
construction that the provisions of a statute
are to be read in a way that renders them
compatible and not contradictory.

30. The applicability of the principle
of harmonious construction came up for
consideration in Krishan Kumar Vs. State
of Rajasthan and others5, in the context
of some apparent conflict between two
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and referring to an earlier decision in
Venkataramana Devaru v. State of
Mysore,14 it was observed as follows :-

"11.
It
is
settled
principle
of
interpretation that where there appears to
be inconsistency in two sections of the
same Act, the principle of harmonious
6 All. Smt. Jhinka Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
277
construction
should
be
followed
in
avoiding a head on clash. It should not be
lightly assumed that what the Parliament
has given with one hand, it took away with
the other. The provisions of one section of
statute cannot be used to defeat those of
another unless it is impossible to reconcile
the same. In Venkataramana Devaru v.
State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255, 268,
this Court observed: (AIR p. 268)

"The rule of construction is well
settled that when there are in an enactment
two provisions which cannot be reconciled
with each other, they should be so
interpreted that, if possible, effect should
be given to both. This is what is known as
the rule of harmonious construction."

The
essence
of
harmonious
construction is to give effect to both the
provisions..."

31. The principle of harmonious
construction as a basic rule of interpretation
again fell for consideration in Sultana
Begum Vs.