The Allahabad High Court has ruled that revisions and appeals under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, remain valid for cases initiated prior to the enforcement of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, reaffirming the principle that substantive rights cannot be curtailed by subsequent procedural changes.
The decision was rendered in Charan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ – C No. 43025 of 2018), alongside connected cases. The matter was adjudicated by a division bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar.
Background of the Case
The petitions arose from a legal dispute regarding whether appeals or revisions in cases decided under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, could still be filed under the repealed Act, given the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The specific issue, referred by the Chief Justice, was whether the remedies provided under the repealed Act could continue to apply to suits instituted prior to February 11, 2016, when the new Code came into force.
Key Legal Issue
The primary legal question was whether the remedies available under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, for revisions and appeals remained intact for decrees passed in cases filed before the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioners contended that substantive rights vested at the time of suit initiation should remain unaffected.
Court’s Observations
The court upheld the petitioners’ position, making several critical observations:
1. Vested Substantive Rights: The right to appeal or revision is a substantive right, vested from the moment a suit is filed. The court emphasized, “The institution of a suit carries with it the implication that all remedies in force at the time of filing are preserved until the litigation concludes.”
2. Continuity Through Transition: Section 230(2)(d) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, explicitly safeguards rights, remedies, and proceedings instituted under the repealed Act. Section 231 further stipulates that pending cases will be governed by the laws in effect at their commencement.
3. No Express Bar: The bench observed that the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, does not expressly curtail the remedies available under the repealed Act. Instead, it allows for continuity in proceedings to prevent substantive injustice.
4. Legal Unity in Proceedings: Drawing from Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and other landmark cases, the court reinforced the doctrine that appeals and revisions are integral to a unified legal process.
Decision
The court answered the reference affirmatively, holding that revisions filed under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, are maintainable even after the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, provided the original suit was filed before the new Code came into force.
The judgment declared, “Any repealing law which repeals an earlier law shall not affect the remedies available to a party on the date the suit was filed. Such remedies shall remain intact unless expressly taken away by the new law.”
Parties and Counsel
The petitioners, including Charan Singh, Pyare Lal, and Gulshan E Gaeshe Azam Welfare Trust, were represented by advocates Vishal Khandelwal, Gaurav Singh, and Harsh Vikram, among others. The respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh and its agencies, were represented by Additional Chief Standing Counsel S.N. Srivastava and advocates Krishna Kant Singh and Neelabh Srivastava.
