The Allahabad High Court has clarified that revision petitions under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 cannot be entertained against orders passed under Section 38(1), which are appealable under Section 38(4). This ruling reinforces the statutory hierarchy of remedies in revenue proceedings and curbs forum shopping by parties seeking to bypass the prescribed appellate route.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bhawani Prasad Tiwari, challenged the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh (Respondent No. 2), which allowed a revision petition filed by Respondents Nos. 7 to 9. That revision had set aside an order dated 25.7.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Respondent No. 3) under Section 38(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The original order had directed the expungement of names of Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 and their predecessor, Majada Javi, from revenue records relating to Plot Nos. 333, 335, and 344, and their classification as Usar land.
Key Facts
- The revenue records for Plot Nos. 333, 335, and 344 were originally recorded as Usar in Khata No. 226.
- In 1965, a Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 11.5.1965, which led to the modification of revenue records under Section 109 of the Code.
- As a result, the name of Majada Javi was entered in the Khatauni of 1392 Fasli.
- Majada Javi’s name remained in the revenue records for over 30 years, through successive Khataunis up to 1433 Fasli.
- On 2.8.2022, Majada Javi executed a sale deed in favor of Respondents Nos. 7 to 9.
- Based on this sale deed, the Tehsildar passed an order dated 18.7.2023 recording Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 as owners.
- An appeal against the Tehsildar’s order dated 18.7.2023 was pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
- On 9.3.2024, the Tehsildar submitted a report alleging forgery in the consolidation records.
- On 25.7.2024, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order under Section 38(1) expunging the names of Majada Javi and Respondents Nos. 7 to 9.
- Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 filed a revision under Section 210 before the Board of Revenue.
- On 17.11.2025, the Board allowed the revision, set aside the 25.7.2024 order, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Procedural History
- 11.05.1965: Consolidation Officer’s order modifying revenue records under Section 109.
- 1965 - 2022: Name of Majada Javi continued in Khataunis from 1392 Fasli to 1433 Fasli.
- 02.08.2022: Sale deed executed by Majada Javi in favor of Respondents Nos. 7 to 9.
- 18.07.2023: Tehsildar’s order recording Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 as owners.
- 09.03.2024: Tehsildar’s report alleging forgery in consolidation records.
- 25.07.2024: Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order under Section 38(1) expunging names and classifying land as Usar.
- Pending: Appeal against Tehsildar’s order dated 18.7.2023.
- 17.11.2025: Board of Revenue allowed revision under Section 210 and set aside the 25.7.2024 order.
- 2026: Writ Petition No. 1904 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order under Section 38(1) was valid and that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 210, as Section 38(4) provides an exclusive statutory appeal. The petitioner further argued that the initiation of proceedings under Section 38(1) while an appeal against the 18.7.2023 order was pending amounted to abuse of process.
Respondents Nos. 7 to 9, through the Board of Revenue, argued that the entries in the revenue records were forged and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted prematurely by acting on prima facie suspicion without first correcting the consolidation records.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Board of Revenue’s order dated 17.11.2025 and restoration of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order dated 25.7.2024.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 permits a revision against an order passed under Section 38(1), when Section 38(4) provides a specific statutory appeal.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the principle of statutory exclusivity, arguing that Section 38(4) explicitly provides for an appeal against orders under Section 38(1), thereby excluding any other remedy, including revision under Section 210. He cited State of U.P. v. Ram Prakash to emphasize that where a statute provides a specific appellate mechanism, revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent it. He further contended that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order was not an abuse of power but a legitimate exercise to correct patently fraudulent entries, especially where the consolidation records had been altered decades ago without due process.
For the Respondent
The Standing Counsel for the State and Advocate for Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 argued that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted without jurisdiction by directly expunging names based on prima facie suspicion of forgery in consolidation records. They contended that the proper procedure required correction of the consolidation records under Section 109 before any action under Section 38(1). They also submitted that the Board of Revenue, as the highest revenue authority, retained inherent revisional powers to correct patent errors, even if an appeal lay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It noted that Section 38(1) empowers the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to correct errors or omissions in revenue records, while Section 38(4) provides for an appeal against such orders. The Court held that the legislature, by providing a specific appellate remedy under Section 38(4), intended to exclude revisional jurisdiction under Section 210.
"Once a statutory appeal is provided, revisional jurisdiction under Section 210 cannot be invoked to circumvent the appellate process. The Board of Revenue erred in entertaining the revision petition."
The Court further observed that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order was not rendered invalid merely because it relied on prima facie evidence. The long-standing presence of Majada Javi’s name in the revenue records for over three decades, coupled with the absence of any legitimate documentation supporting the consolidation order of 1965, warranted scrutiny. However, the Court found that the Magistrate’s action was premature because the consolidation records themselves had not been formally corrected under Section 109 before invoking Section 38(1).
Crucially, the Court emphasized that the initiation of proceedings under Section 38(1) while an appeal against the Tehsildar’s order dated 18.7.2023 was pending amounted to a multiplicity of proceedings and an abuse of process. The Board of Revenue, therefore, was justified in setting aside the order dated 25.7.2024 - not because revision was maintainable, but because the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had acted without following due procedure.
The Court concluded that while the Board’s reasoning for setting aside the order was flawed (as revision was not maintainable), its ultimate decision to remand the matter for proper adjudication was legally sound and should not be disturbed.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the Board of Revenue’s order dated 17.11.2025, but clarified that the revision under Section 210 was not maintainable. The matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to proceed afresh in accordance with law, first by determining the validity of the consolidation records under Section 109 before any action under Section 38(1). No monetary relief or costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Revision Cannot Substitute Appeal
- Practitioners must file appeals under Section 38(4) within the prescribed period; revision under Section 210 is not a substitute.
- Any revision petition filed against a Section 38(1) order is liable to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Procedural Hierarchy Must Be Followed
- Before invoking Section 38(1) to expunge names, revenue authorities must first rectify errors in consolidation records under Section 109.
- Acting on prima facie suspicion without formal correction of underlying records is procedurally defective.
Avoid Concurrent Proceedings
- No parallel proceedings under Section 38(1) can be initiated while an appeal against a related order (e.g., Tehsildar’s transfer order) is pending.
- Courts will treat such actions as forum shopping and abuse of process.
Documentary Evidence Prevails Over Oral Claims
- Where revenue records show continuous possession for over 30 years, allegations of forgery require concrete documentary proof - not mere suspicion.
- Burden of proving forgery lies on the party challenging the entries.
