Allahabad High Court Quashes Revision Against Interlocutory Order in Land Dispute

Court Rules Revision Unmaintainable Due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Reasoning

In a significant judgment delivered on November 15, 2025, the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench, presided by Justice Irshad Ali, quashed a revision order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, in a land dispute case. The court held that the revision against an interlocutory order in an interim injunction application was not maintainable and thus, the order was issued without jurisdiction and lacked necessary reasoning.

The case, titled "Sadhu Saran Chaubey v. Addl. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal," involved a series of contested Will deeds concerning the estate of the deceased Ram Abhilakh. The petitioner, Sadhu Saran Chaubey, challenged the order dated May 2, 2002, passed by the respondent Additional Commissioner, which stayed an interim order favoring Chaubey.

The dispute originated from a Will deed executed in 1985 by Ram Abhilakh, which underwent multiple changes before his death. The petitioner filed a declaratory suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, seeking interim relief under Section 229-D. An interim injunction was granted, maintaining the status quo concerning the property. However, respondent No.5, Bajrang Bahadur, whose name was mutated in the revenue records, filed a revision against this interlocutory order.

Justice Ali, after hearing submissions from both sides, emphasized that the interim order dated April 20, 2002, was interlocutory and did not decide the suit or proceeding. Consequently, any revision against such an order was not permissible. The judgment also criticized the revisional court's order for its lack of reasoning, rendering it legally unsustainable.

Citing the precedent set in "Mohd Muslim v. State of U.P.," the court reiterated that revisions must be based on a final order or decision regarding a suit or proceeding to be maintainable. The judgment underscored the jurisdictional error and the absence of reasoning as grounds for quashing the impugned order.

The decision marks a critical reaffirmation of procedural propriety in judicial revisions, ensuring that interlocutory orders remain insulated from premature challenges that bypass the established legal standards.

Bottom Line:

Revision against an interlocutory order passed in an interim injunction application is not maintainable.

Statutory provision(s): U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Section 229-B, Section 229-D, Section 333

Sadhu Saran Chaubey v. Addl. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2809449