JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajiv Joshi, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.2.2018 passed by the Two Member Bench of Board of Revenue, U.P at Lucknow, whereby the review application filed by the respondent No. 20, M/s Narain Hari Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd, Delhi was allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 3.2.2017 passed by the single Member of the Board of Revenue and affirming the order dated 3.9.2015 of Additional Commissioner. 2. The facts of the case as reflect from the record are thus: 3. On the basis of the resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha on 28.2.1985, the land of plot No. 188 area 15 biswa i.e. 1900 square metre was resolved to be recorded as road. Subsequently, the said resolution was forwarded for approval to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who vide his order dated 14.8.1985 accorded approval and ordered for deleting the names of the recorded tenure holders in respect of plot No. 188 and recording the same as road. The petitioners by way of filing an application dated 3.6.2014 sought condonation of delay as well as recall of the order dated 14.8.1985 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dadari, District Gautam Budha Nagar. The said application was allowed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 31.10.2014. 4. Against the order dated 31.10.2014 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the respondent No. 20- M/s Narain Hari Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd, Delhi filed Revision No. 6 of 2013-14, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut vide its order dated 31.3.2015. Both the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Dadari, District Gautam Budha Nagar as well as Additional Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut were challenged by the respondent No. 20- M/s Narain Hari Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd, Delhi before this Court in Writ C No. 19722 of 2015 (M/s Narain Hari Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 13 others). While entertaining the said writ petition, the following interim order was passed by the Court on 23.4.2015: “As an interim measure without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties revenue entries in the revenue record as on date be maintained till the next date of listing but that shall not be treated to be a document of title.” 5. The said writ petition is still pending after the exchange of pleadings between the parties. The said writ petition is still pending after the exchange of pleadings between the parties. In the meantime, two more writ petitions were filed being Writ C No. 30624 of 2016 and 1929 of 2016 by the tenure holders-Tarachand and two others and Smt. Usha respectively, which were connected vide order dated 5.9.2016 and the parties were directed to approach the Collector, Gautam Buddh Nagar, who was also directed to conduct the survey on the basis of fixed points as required under law. 6. It is further apparent from the record that the petitioners filed an application on 26.11.2014 for demarcation/settlement of boundaries in respect of plot No. 188 under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as Act), which was allowed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dadari, Gautam Buddh Nagar vide order dated 24.4.2015. Against the order dated 24.4.2015 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, the respondent No. 20- M/s Narain Hari Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd, Delhi filed an appeal under Section 210 of the Act before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, which was later on transferred to the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, who allowed the same vide order dated 3.9.2015 and set aside the order dated 24.4.2015 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 7. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 219 of the Act, registered as Revision No. 2467 of 2015, which was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 3.2.2017 by setting aside the order of Additional Commissioner dated 3.9.2015 and affirming the order dated 24.4.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate for demarcation of the land. 8. The respondent No. 20- M/s Narain Hari Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd, Delhi then filed a review application under Section 220 of the Act for reviewing its earlier order dated 3.2.2017. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 16.2.2018 allowed the review application, set aside its earlier order dated 3.2.2017 and affirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner making it clear that the order would be subject to the final order passed in the pending writ petitions. This order dated 16.2.2018 of the Board of Revenue, U.P at Lucknow, is impugned in the present writ petition. 9. I have heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No. 20. 10. This order dated 16.2.2018 of the Board of Revenue, U.P at Lucknow, is impugned in the present writ petition. 9. I have heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No. 20. 10. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioners is that review petition filed by the respondent No. 20 before the Board of Revenue is not at all maintainable. In support of the aforesaid contention, he further submitted that review was filed on 17.7.2017 against the order dated 3.2.2017 i.e. beyond time by 145 days, whereas the limitation for filing the review as per Section 211 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Code) is only 60 days. The provision of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 is a special enactment and therefore, the provision of limitation is excluded in view of Section 214 of the Code. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon paragraphs 14 and 16 of judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Patel Brothers v. State of Assam and others, (2017) 2 SCC 350 . 11. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 20 submitted that proceedings in question under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act were initiated by the petitioners on 26.11.2014 and since, the proceeding of the review is in continuation of an initial proceeding and therefore, the provisions of the Code are not at all attracted, which came into force w.e.f. 18.12.2015. He further submitted that Board of Revenue exercised its power under Section 220 (2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act while deciding the review. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon Section 231 of the Code, which deals with the applicability of the Code to pending proceedings and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by two Members of Board of Revenue while allowing the review application. 12. I have considered the rival submission raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. To appreciate the controversy involved in this case, the provisions of Sections 211, 214 and 231 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are relevant, which read thus: “211. 12. I have considered the rival submission raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. To appreciate the controversy involved in this case, the provisions of Sections 211, 214 and 231 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are relevant, which read thus: “211. Board’s power of review.—(1) The Board may, of its own motion or on the application of any party interested, review any order passed by itself and pass such orders in reference thereto as it thinks fit. (2) No order shall be reviewed under sub-section (1), except on the following grounds- (a) discovery of any new and important matter or evidence; (b) some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; (c) any other sufficient reason. (3) Orders passed on review shall not be reviewed. (4) An application under sub-section (1), for review of any order, may be moved within sixty days from the date of such order. 214. Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Limitation Act, 1963.- Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Code, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to every suit, application or proceedings under this Code. 231. Applicability of the Code to pending proceedings.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Code, all cases pending before the State Government or any Revenue Court immediately before the commencement of this Code, whether in appeal, revision, review or otherwise, shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate law, which would have been applicable to them had this Code not been passed. (2) All cases pending in any Civil Court immediately before the commencement of this Code which would under this Code be exclusively triable by a revenue Court, shall be disposed of by such Civil Court according to the law in force prior to the date of such commencement.” 14. From the bare perusal of Section 211 of the Code, it is apparent that limitation for filing the review is 60 days and Section 214 expressly provided the provisions of limitation Act shall apply unless otherwise expressly provided by or under the Code. From the bare perusal of Section 211 of the Code, it is apparent that limitation for filing the review is 60 days and Section 214 expressly provided the provisions of limitation Act shall apply unless otherwise expressly provided by or under the Code. The moot question involved in the present case is whether the provision of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are applicable in proceedings, which were initiated in 2014 under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and whether the present Code applies to a pending proceeding. Admittedly, the review was filed under Section 220 (2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the provisions of Limitation Act is applicable to the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Section 231 of the Code specifically prescribes that all cases pending before the revenue Court immediately before the commencement of Code whether in appeal, revision, review or otherwise, shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate law, which would have been applicable to them had this Code not come into force. 15. In this view of the matter as specifically provided in Section 231 of the Code, the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 are not at all applicable to the present proceeding and the review filed under Section 220 (2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is maintainable. 16. So far as the decision of the Apex Court in Patel Brother’s case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, is concerned, in that case the question for determination before the Apex Court was as to whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable in respect of the revision petition filed in the High Court under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short the VAT Act). Section 84 of the VAT Act provided that provisions of Section 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act shall apply in computing the period of limitation. Section 84 of the VAT Act provided that provisions of Section 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act shall apply in computing the period of limitation. The Apex Court in the said case took the view that legislature intended only Section 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, out of Sections 4 to 24 to be applicable under the VAT Act thereby excluding the applicability of the other provisions of the Limitation Act and therefore it was held in that case that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation to a proceeding under Section 81 of the VAT Act stands excluded by necessary implication, by virtue of language employed in Section 84. 17. Here in the present case the proceedings are under the provisions of Land Revenue Act and the Review application was also preferred under Section 220 (2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, to which provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable and hence, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is clearly distinguishable and therefore is of no help to the petitioners. 18. No other point has been raised. 19. I do not find any merit in the contention as raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. 20. Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.