Can I file a revision if the sub divisional magistrate has wrongly rejected the order of status quo in my case for declaration of title in agricultural land. My father received some agricultural land from his ancestors. We are bhumidhar with the right of alienation. Our family is not residing in the village and some other people are trying to encroach our land. Therefore, we filed a case before the court of SDM, Pharenda. He was granted status quo on the first date but later on he revoked his order. Now the advocates have different views on taking the next step against the order of SDM. One of them is advising that revision is not possible because the case is still pending. And others have advised to file revision. Please suggest.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
It appears that you have filed a suit under Section 144 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 2006, seeking a declaration. In this suit, you requested interim relief under Section 146 of the same code.
However, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) has revoked the prior order of status quo that was in your favour, denying the interim relief under Section 146, though the suit under Section 144 remains pending.
In this context, the order rejecting interim relief constitutes an interlocutory order. Established legal precedent dictates that no revision can be filed against an interlocutory order. In Riyasal Ali vs. DDC and Others [2022], the Allahabad High Court has held that a revision is not permissible against an interlocutory order.
Consequently, you cannot file a revision against the impugned order issued by the SDM. Under Section 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Code, a prerequisite for filing a revision is that the order in question must have been passed in a suit conclusively decided by the revenue court. Since your suit is still pending, you cannot file a revision either to the Board of Revenue or the Commissioner.
In this situation, it is advisable to file a petition in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If there is an imminent risk to the suit property, or if the opposing party might cause harm to the property, it is essential that both parties maintain the status quo. Thus, the SDM should not have revoked the prior order maintaining the status quo. For more legal help please visit Kanoon India.
