Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16893 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shakuntala Respondent :- Commissioner,Azamgarh Mandal And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhrigu Jee Singh Connected with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16897 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shakuntala Respondent :- Commissioner Azamgarh Mandal And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhrigu Jee Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Shri Rahul Sahai for the petitioner and Shri Abhishek Kumar for the contesting respondents.
Both these writ petitions arise out of different cases and are directed against different orders. However, the controversy in both the cases is identical and, therefore, they have been heard and are being decided together.
Both these petition arise out of mutation proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
In both cases, the petitioner, filed revisions under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 challenging orders passed by the Naib Tehsildar. These revisions have been dismissed as not maintainable and hence these writ petitions.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the revisions were filed on 06.03.2019. The wording of Section 210 in its Hindi version was such that a revision lay where no appeal had been filed against the order sought to be revised.
On 10.03.2019, the aforementioned provision was amended to read that a revision would lie only when the order sought to be revised was not appealable.
It is contended that the revision filed by the petitioner was instituted prior to the amendment and, therefore, would be governed by the unamended provision. Therefore, the Commissioner has committed patent illegality in dismissing the revisions as not maintainable and relegating to petitioner to the remedy of appeal, relying upon the amended provision, which came into effect on 10.03.2019.
The submission of Shri Abhishek Kumar, counsel for the respondent is that the amendment in Section 210 in the Hindi version was to bring it in line with the English version of the Act. The English version provided that a revision would lie only against orders which were not appealable. He has also submitted that in the event of conflict between the English and Hindi versions of a legislation, it is settled law that the English version shall prevail. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the Full Bench decisions of this Court in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (III) U.P. and others, 1961 ALJ page 9 and Ram Rati Vs. Gram Samaj, Jehwa, AIR 1974 (All) 106.
His contention therefore is that the revision filed by the petitioner, was, in the light of the judgments cited by him, not maintainable in any case. The impugned orders therefore, are perfectly justified and call for no interference.
At the very outset, it would be relevant to observe that there is no quarrel with the law laid down in the Full Bench decisions cited by counsel for the respondent, which hold that it is the English version of a legislation which will prevail over the Hindi version, in case of any disparity or conflict between the two. However, as on date, the Hindi and English versions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in so far as they relate to Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, there exists no conflict or disparity, after the amendment in the Hindi version of the said section with effect from 10.03.2019.
The issue for consideration before this Court in these petitions is whether a revision filed by the petitioner which lay in view of the unamended Section 210 (Hindi version) could be dismissed as not maintainable relying upon an amendment which has admittedly been enforced after the revision had been filed.
In case the submission of counsel for the respondent is accepted, the order impugned is definitely justified. However in taking this view, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is going to be penalised for no fault of his because the legislation on the basis whereof the revision was filed, was itself faulty.
Upon a bare reading of the Hindi version of Section 210 prior to its amendment, it clearly emerges that a revision could be filed against an appealable order when no appeal had, in fact, been filed. This is precisely what was done by the petitioner.
It would also be relevant to note that the subordinate courts and especially the revenue courts in U.P. work in the Hindi language. Therefore, if the revision was filed in accordance with the provisions contained in the Hindi version of Section 210 no malafide or fault can be attributed to the petitioner.
It is equally well settled that any amendment made in a procedural law necessarily, has prospective effect unless it has specifically been made applicable retrospectively. It is nobody's case that the amendment in Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Hindi version) with effect from 10.03.2019 was retrospective.
It is also clear that the revision had been filed prior to the amendment and the same has been accepted and registered in the Court of the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh.
Under the circumstances relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal in the aforenoted facts and circumstances does not appear to be justified.
For the same reason, the impugned orders although, they cannot be said to be totally illegal, are still being set aside, in the interest of justice, exercising the equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the object of doing complete justice between the parties.
The orders impugned in these writ petitions, dated 27.03.2019, are hereby set aside. The revisions are remanded back to the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh to decide them on their merits.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.03.2019, are set aside and the matters are remanded to the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Mayank