# Smt. Sushila Srivastava v. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 219
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-19
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 1261 of 2024
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sushila-srivastava-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-ors-53047
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law -Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006Sections 210 & 212-Maintainability of
revision-Transfer
of
revenue
caseConcurrent
jurisdiction-The
petitioner
challenged an order dated 05.09.2024
passed by the Board of Revenue, which
had allowed a revision filed u/s 210 of
U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006,
against
a
transfer order u/s 212(2) of the same
code-Learned single Judge referred the
matter to a Larger Bench-The Division
Bench held that a revision petition is
maintainable against such order as section
210 provides revisional jurisdiction over
proceedings where no appeal lies, and an
order u/s 212(2) is not appealable under
the code-The bench further clarified that
the earlier view taken in Sharda Singh
Case
which
held
that
no
revisional
jurisdiction existed over such transfer
orders, does not lay down the correct lawThe reference was answered accordingly,
affirming the maintainability of revision in
such cases. (Para 1 to 21)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Smt. Sushila Srivastava Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
219
28. The Court also takes note of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in
Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab
(1974) 2 SCC 831 that since principle of
natural justice was substantially complied
with and the petitioner was not able to
explain his mis-conduct and that his
services was not satisfactory, the law
proposed in Shamsher Sing (supra) was
also complied with that, even order of
termination may be punitive, however since
proper opportunity of hearing was granted,
therefore, no ground exists for interference.
(also see Swati Priyadarshini vs. the
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2024
INSC 620).

29. So far as the writ petition being
Writ-A No. 52910 of 2011 is concerned. In
the said petition, an interim order was
already passed in favour of selected
candidate i.e. petitioner no. 2 therein and
that there is merits in the arguments of
learned counsel for the said petitioner that
the posts are not subject wise and that there
are teachers for other subjects, as such
there was no bar to appoint another Teacher
for Vyayam. Therefore, there was no
illegality in the appointment of petitioner
no. 2 in the said petition. Therefore, the
interim order is made absolute.

30. With aforesaid observations,
writ petition i.e. Writ-A No. 63857 of 2007
(Sanjay Kumar Sengar vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.) is dismissed and connected writ
petition i.e. Writ-A No. 52910 of 2011
(C/M K.L. Jain Inter College Sasni
Mahamaya Nagar & Anr. vs. State of U.P.
& Ors.) is allowed. The impugned order
dated 29.06.2010 passed by Joint Director
of Education, Aligarh Region Aligarh is
hereby quashed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 219
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ B No. 1261 of 2024

Smt. Sushila Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Swadha Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Lakkhi Chand Tyagi, Mohan Singh,
Shiv Shanker Tyagi

A. Civil Law -Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006Sections 210 & 212-Maintainability of
revision-Transfer
of
revenue
caseConcurrent
jurisdiction-The
petitioner
challenged an order dated 05.09.2024
passed by the Board of Revenue, which
had allowed a revision filed u/s 210 of
U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006,
against
a
transfer order u/s 212(2) of the same
code-Learned single Judge referred the
matter to a Larger Bench-The Division
Bench held that a revision petition is
maintainable against such order as section
210 provides revisional jurisdiction over
proceedings where no appeal lies, and an
order u/s 212(2) is not appealable under
the code-The bench further clarified that
the earlier view taken in Sharda Singh
Case
which
held
that
no
revisional
jurisdiction existed over such transfer
orders, does not lay down the correct lawThe reference was answered accordingly,
affirming the maintainability of revision in
such cases. (Para 1 to 21)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:
1. Sharda Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.(2019) 142RD 190.

2. Babu Singh & ors. Vs Raj Bahadur Singh &
ors.{T.A. (Civil) No. 121 of 2021}

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. On a reference made by learned Single
Judge vide order dated 19.12.2024 to a larger
Bench, for consideration of the following
question, the matter has been placed before us :

"Whether any revision under Section
210 of the Revenue Code, 2006 would be
maintainable
against
an
order
passed
transferring any case or proceedings in exercise
of power under Section 212 of the Revenue
Code 2006 particularly taking into account
Section 209 read with Section 210 of the Code
of 2006 ?"

2. Writ petition was filed challenging
order dated 05.09.2024 passed in revision
petition filed under Section 210 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 ('Code, 2006') whereby
revision preferred by the respondent no. 3
against an order permitting transfer of case in
exercise of powers under Section 212 of the
Code, 2006 has been allowed.

3. Before the learned Single Judge, a
plea was raised that the revision was not
maintainable, which plea was raised before the
Board of Revenue, however, the same was not
considered and reliance in this regard was
placed on judgement in Sharda Singh and
others v. State of U.P. and others : 2019(142)
RD 190.

4. Learned Single Judge, was of the
opinion that judgement in the case of
Sharda Singh (Supra) had not taken into
account the provisions of Section 209 and
210 of the Code, 2006 and that prima-facie
revisional power against an order passed by
sub-ordinate revenue court or authority
even under Section 212 of the Code, 2006,
would be exercisable under Section 210 of
the Code, 2006 and consequently, referred
the issue to the larger Bench.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, at the outset, made submissions
that he was unaware of the Division Bench
judgement in Babu Singh & others v. Raj
Bahadur Singh and others [Transfer
Application (Civil) No. 121 of 2021]
decided on 10.11.202.

6. The Division Bench while
answering a similar nature reference in
relation to exercise of revisional power
under Section 115 CPC against order of the
District Judge in relation to order passed
under Section 24 CPC, which deals with
general powers of transfer and withdrawal,
came to the conclusion that such revision
petition was maintainable.

7.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents also relied on the decision in
Babu Singh (Supra).

8.
We
have
considered
the
submissions made by counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record.

9. It would be appropriate to quote
provisions of Section 209, 210 and 212 of the
Code, 2006, which read as under :

"209. Bar against certain appeals
-- Notwithstanding anything contained in
Sections 207 and 208, no appeal shall lie
against any order or decree -
3 All. Smt. Sushila Srivastava Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
221

(a) made under Chapter XI of this
Code;

(b) granting or rejecting an
application for condonation of delay under
Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963;

(c) rejecting an application for
revision;

(d) granting or rejecting an
application for stay;

(e) remanding the case to any
subordinate Court;

(f) where such order or decree is
of an interim nature.

(g) passed by Court or officer
with the consent of parties; or

(h) where has been passed exparte or by default:

Provided that any party aggrieved
by order passed ex-parte or by default, may
move application for setting aside such
order within a period of thirty days from
the date of the order;

Provided further that no such
order shall be reversed or altered without
previously summoning the party in whose
favour order has been passed to appear and
be heard in support of it.

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 subordinate 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.

212. Power to transfer cases --
(1) Where it appears to the Board that it
will be expedient for the ends of justice to
do so, it may direct that any case be
transferred from one revenue officer to
another revenue officer of an equal or
superior rank in same district or any other
district.

(2)
The
Commissioner,
the
Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer
may make over any case or class of cases
arising under the provisions of this Code or
any other enactment for the time being in
force, for decision from his own file to any
revenue officer sub-ordinate to him and
competent to decide such case or class of
cases, or may withdraw any case or class of
cases from any such revenue officer and
may deal with such case or class of cases
himself or refer the same for disposal to
any other revenue officer competent to
decide such case or class of cases."
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. A perusal of the provisions of
Section 212 reveals that power of transfer
under sub-section (1) is conferred on the
Board of Revenue, which may direct that
any case be transferred from one revenue
officer to another revenue officer of an
equal or superior rank in same district or
any other district. Under sub-section (2) the
power
has
been
conferred
on
the
Commissioner, the Collector and the Sub
Divisional Officer in relation to any case or
class of cases for transfer from own file to
any revenue officer sub-ordinate to him or
withdraw any case or class of cases from
any such revenue officer and may deal with
such case or class of cases himself or refer
the same for disposal to any other revenue
officer competent to decide such case or
such class of cases.

11. The power of the Board of
Revenue and that of the Commissioner/
Collector/Sub
Divisional
Officer
are
concurrent, wherein the power which can
be exercised by the Commissioner, the
Collector or the Sub Divisional Officer can
also be exercised by the Board of Revenue.

12. The Code, 2006 provides for
First Appeal under Section 207 against final
order or decree passed in a suit, application or
proceedings specified in Column 2 of Third
Schedule and the same also lies against an
order of nature specified in Section 47, 104
and Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.

13. Order passed under Section 212
is not specified in Column 2 of the Third
Schedule of the Code and as such, the same
is not appellable. Section 209 of the Code,
2006 bars filing of appeals against certain
orders.

14. Section 210 of the Code, 2006
confers revisional powers on the Board or
the Commissioner in relation to any order
passed in any suit or proceeding by any
sub-ordinate revenue court in case no
appeal lies.

15. A combined reading of the
above provisions reveals that against an
order passed under Section 212(2) of the
Code, 2006, a revision would lie before the
Board of Revenue.

16. A Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Babu Singh (Supra), after
scanning the entire law on the subject,
came to the following conclusions :

"43. In view of what we have
held above, our answers to the questions
referred are these:

(i) The question is answered in
the affirmative and it is held that an order
passed by the District Judge under Section
24 CPC is revisable under Section 115 CPC
as applicable in the State of U.P.

(ii) The question stands answered
in the negative and it is held that another
application under Section 24 CPC by the
same applicant based on the same cause of
action would not be maintainable before
this Court without challenging the order
passed by the District Judge, on the
application disposed of by the District
Judge under Section 24 CPC through a
revision under Section 115 CPC. Normally,
the order of the District Judge passed on an
application under Section 24 CPC being
revisable, the constitutional remedy under
Article 227, though not barred, may not be
invoked on the sound principle of the
availability of an equally efficacious
statutory alternative remedy under Section
115 CPC."

17. So far as the judgement in the
case
of
Sharda
Singh
(Supra)
is
3 All. Agya Ram Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation & Ors.
223
concerned, the issue in the said
case arose on account of the plea raised that
when the transfer application was filed
before the Board of Revenue, it was not
disclosed that earlier transfer application
was filed before the Collector, Kashganj,
which
was
dismissed,
on
which
submission, the learned Single Judge came
to the conclusion that power of transfer
under Section 212 is a concurrent power to
be exercised by any of the authorities
mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 212
of the Code, 2006, however, after coming
to the said conclusion a further observation,
as under, was made :

 "None of the authorities exercises
either appellate or revisional jurisdiction over
an order on a transfer application, which may
have been passed by a authority subordinate to
it."

18. We are of the opinion that the said
observations were made without reference to
the relevant provisions, including Section 210
of the Code, 2006 and without discussion on
the subject matter.

19. In view of the above discussions,
our answer to the question referred to us as
under :

I. A revision petition under Section
210 of the Code, 2006 would be maintainable
against an order passed/transferring any case
or proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 212(2) of the Code, 2006.

II. The observations made in the
case of Sharda Singh (Supra) in relation to
the revisional jurisdiction, do not lay down
correct law.

20. The reference is answered
accordingly.

21. Let the matter be placed before
the appropriate Bench.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 223
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ B No. 4405 of 1985
Connected with
Writ B No. 3396 of 1987

Agya Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
Joint Director of Consolidation & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
 Sri S. Mirza, Sri H.S. Sahai, Sri Q.M.
Haque, Sriu S. Mirza, Sri U.S. Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Sri N.R.
Tripathi, Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, Pinki
Devi, Sri Puttu \Lal Mishra, Sri Q.M.
Haque, Sri R.K. Tripathi, Sri S.P. Dubey,
Sri Shri Prakash Verma, Sri Vinod Kumar
Gupta, Sri Z. Jilani

A.
Civil
Law
-U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act,1953-Section
9(A-2)-Cotenancy and Succession rights-Adverse
possession -Family settlement-Mutation
proceedings-The dispute concerned Khata
No.s5 and 41 in Village Pipra Ekdanga,
District Gonda-Upon commencement of
consolidation , names of Agya Ram, Parag,
and Smt. Chhitna were recorded with
shares-Smt.
Yashodhara(daughter
of
Hardwar) filed objections claiming cotenancy with her sister Chhitna-Agya Ram
and Parag also claimed larger shares
based on a compromise deed (1959) and a
family settlement, asserting the land was
ancestral property from one Matai-The
Consolidation Officer held the property