JUDGMENT : Few basic facts as it engages consideration, in the present writ petition are, that the petitioner before this Court is a defendant No. 51 in Suit No. 27/03 of 1998-99, Mahendra Singh and others Vs. Ishwar Singh and others, instituted by the respondent numbers 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition by invoking the provisions contained under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, seeking partition of the holdings, which was more particularly described in relief 10A of the Suit. The property in relation to which, the proceedings under Section 176 of the Act was instituted, is extracted hereunder:- **10- ;g fd oknhx.k mijksDr fuEu vuqrks"k fn;s tkus dh ÁkFkZuk djrs gSa%& v- ;g fd xzke vk.kw iVVh i0N%[kkrk rglhy o ftyk uSuhrky ds T;M-,- [krkSuh [kkrk ua- 5 ftldk dqy jdck 19 ukyh 8 eqBBh gS] mlesa oknhx.k dk lkढs nl eqBBh gd fgLlk vkrk gS] rFkk T;M-,- [krkSuh [krk ua- 99 ftldk dqy jdck 37 ukyh 9 eqBBh gS] mlesa oknhx.k dk 1 ukyh 4 eqBBh gd fgLlk vkrk gS] ,oa [kkrk ua- 119] ftldk dqy jdck 10 ukyh 13 eqVBh gS] mlesa oknhx.k dk 3 uhy 10 eqVBh dk gd fgLlk vkrk gS] bl Ádkj rhuksa [kkrksa esa oknhx.k dk gd fgLlk 5 ukyh lkढs vkB eqVBh dk gd fgLlk vkrk gS] ml fgLls dks caVokjh dh fMØh ikfjr Áfroknhx.k 1 yxk;r 51 ls vyx dj tehu dh fdLe ds vuqlkj nkok caVokjk oknhx.k ds gd esa fMØh dj fn;k tk; vkSj mudk [kkrk Áfroknhx.k la 1 yxk;r 51 ls vyx dj fn;k tk; vkSj oknhx.k dk vyx ,d [kkrk cuk fn;k tk;A** 2. The suit proceeded on its merits and ultimately, the same was decided by the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, by preparation of a preliminary decree of partition on 25th July 2008, wherein the kuras as settled interse between the parties to the suit and the same was placed before the Assistant Collector, based on the report submitted by the Amin on 12th September 1999. The Assistant Collector, 1st class vide its judgement dated 25th July 2008 decided the suit for partition and while fixing the kuras which was based as per the schedule given under the judgement dated 25th July 2008 itself. The same was put to challenge in a Z.A. Appeal being Z.A Appeal No. 85/07-08/47/10-11, Birla Institute of Scientific Research Vs. The Assistant Collector, 1st class vide its judgement dated 25th July 2008 decided the suit for partition and while fixing the kuras which was based as per the schedule given under the judgement dated 25th July 2008 itself. The same was put to challenge in a Z.A. Appeal being Z.A Appeal No. 85/07-08/47/10-11, Birla Institute of Scientific Research Vs. Mahendra Singh and 29 others, preferred by the petitioner/defendant, putting a challenge to the decree of 25th July 2008, by invoking the provisions contained under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Appeal thus preferred by the petitioner too met with the same destiny and the same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Commissioner vide its judgement dated 26th January 2015, affirming the judgement of the learned trial Court. The observations which were made by the Appellate Court, observes as under:- **ek= bl vk/kkj ij] fd ÁR;FkhZ@oknh ml xkWao esa ugha jgrk gS tgkWa Á'uxr Hkwfe gS ÁR;FkhZ@oknh ds HkkSfed vf/kdkj lekIr ugha ekus tk ldrs gSa] vkSj u gh fdlh [kkrsnkj ;k tksrnkj dks /kkjk 176 tSM- ,- ds varxZr vius [kkrs ds foHkktu ds vf/kdkj ls oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA vihydrkZ }kjk fofHkUu lg[kkrsnkjksa ls Hkwfe Ø; dh x;h gS ijUrq ;g Hkh iq"V rF; gS fd ftruh Hkwfe vihydrkZ }kjk Ø; dh x;h gS jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa vihydrkZ ds uke ntZ ugha gSA /kkjk 176 tSM0 ,s0 ,oa lifBr fu;e dh O;oLFkk [kkrsa ds foHkktu ls lacaf/kr gS vkSj ;g fOkHkktu [kkrs esa ntZ [kkrsnkjksa ds va'k dk fu/kkZj.k djrs gq, fd;s tkus dk Ákfo/kku gSA fuEu U;k;ky; ds le{k ÁLrqr [krkSuh esa ntZ [kkrsnkjksa ds vk/kkj ij oknh o vU; ds va'k dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k gSA vihydrkZ bl ckr ds fy;s Lora= gS fd Ø; 'kqnk Hkwfe esa ukekUrj.k dh dk;Zokgh djokus mijkUr vius va'k dk fu/kkZj.k djrs gq, [kkrs ds foHkktu dk okn nk;j djsa vFkok fof/kuqlkj] fopkjk/khu@okn esa gh vius gd dh mn~?kks"k.kk djokrs gq, vius va'k ds fu/kkZj.k ,oa [kkrs ds foHkktu gsrq fofgr ÁfØ;k dk ikyu djrs gq, Áfrnkok djsA** 3. The order of the First Appellate Court, was put to challenge along with the order of Assistant Collector, 1st class directing the preparation of preliminary decree by filing a Revision being Revenue Revision No. 139 of 2014-15, Birla Institute of Scientific Research Branch Vs. The order of the First Appellate Court, was put to challenge along with the order of Assistant Collector, 1st class directing the preparation of preliminary decree by filing a Revision being Revenue Revision No. 139 of 2014-15, Birla Institute of Scientific Research Branch Vs. Mahiendra Singh and others under the provisions contained under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which too was dismissed by the learned Revisional Court, i.e. the Board of Revenue by one of the impugned judgements dated 14th March 2019. It is these three judgements, which are put to challenge by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very inception of the proceedings, had submitted that the entire proceedings, which were held under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, was vitiated for the reason being that the suit, which was instituted by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 on 13th August 1999, was bad in the eyes of law for the reason being there was a non compliance of the provisions contained under Rule 156 of the Rules, as framed under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. In fact, what the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to argue is that if Rule 156, itself is taken into consideration, it provides that at the time when the suit itself was instituted, the plaintiff therein has to comply with the provisions contained under Rules 127, for the purposes of facilitating the Court, which is ceased with the proceedings under Section 176 of the Act; for facilitating an effective deciding the matter and that is why Rule 156 contemplates that before a suit for division of a holding is instituted by way of a suit, the plaint for which the proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is instituted, it should contain the particulars pertaining to the areas dealt with under sub Rule (1 to 6) of Rule 127 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules 1952. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter, from the perspective, as if Rule 156 is mandatory in nature and it has to be necessarily required to be pleaded in the plaint which has been preferred by the plaintiff respondent herein on 13th August 1999. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter, from the perspective, as if Rule 156 is mandatory in nature and it has to be necessarily required to be pleaded in the plaint which has been preferred by the plaintiff respondent herein on 13th August 1999. If the provisions of Rule 156 is read together with Rule 127 of the Rules, which are extracted hereunder, in fact, what it intends to, is that, it should give the details of the property, which is made as a subject matter of partition under Section 176 of the Act, the respective claim of shares; the percentage of share of the parties to the partition suit; the respective description of the property; and various other aspects as provided under sub clause (1 to 6), of Rule 127. 127. A plaint for partition of a holding under Section 138 of the Act, shall contain the following particulars : (1) the name, parentage and residence of the applicant, (2) the name, parentage and residence of other tenure-holders of the holding, (3) the share of the applicant, (4) the share of the other co-tenure-holder of the holding, (5) the khasra numbers and area of the holding, (6) the village, pargana and tahsil in which the holding is situate, (7) [the land revenue payable], (8) the amount paid under the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949, or under Section 134 of the Act, as the case may be, (9) the date of payment, (10) the date of grant of the declaration. “156. [Division] of holdings Sections 176 to 182. - [(1)] A plaint for [division] of a holding under Section 176 shall contain the particulars mentioned in clauses (1) to (6) of Rules 127 and the land revenue payable for the holding. [(2) Where a suit has been filed for division of more than one holding, the particulars referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be mentioned in the plaint for all such holdings.] 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these Rules are mandatory and in relation thereto he has made reference to a judgement which had been rendered by the Allahabad High Court as reported in AIR 1973 All 61 , Jairam Singh and others Vs. Settlement Officer Consolidation, as decided by the Allahabad High Court on 11th August 1972. Settlement Officer Consolidation, as decided by the Allahabad High Court on 11th August 1972. If an overall backdrop of the principles of the said judgement, which is being sought to be attracted by the petitioner for the purposes of applying Rule 156, is taken into consideration, in fact, in that case, the proceedings which were held under Section 176 of the Act, initially it stood initiated under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which later on stood abated, as a consequence of the implications of Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, and, it was under the light of that backdrop the Court has considered, as to what impact it would carry to the provisional decree, and the final decree which has to be prepared in a proceeding, which is being drawn under Section 176 of the Act. Hence, exclusively for that purpose, the Allahabad High Court before referring to para 7, on which the reliance has been placed, the facts under which the said judgement was rendered, is also required to be considered and for that purpose, para 7 is extracted hereunder:- “7. The present is not a case covered by Section 178 of the Act which applies to the cases of division of a holding the aggregate area of which does not exceed three and, one-eight acres. To the facts of the present case Rules 127 to 132 are applicable. Rule 157 says that "157. Before making a division the court shall- (a) determine separately the share of the plaintiff and each of the other co-tenure-holders, (b) ...... (c) make valuation of the holding of holdings in accordance with the rent-rate applicable to each plot in the holding, and (d) Determine separately the value of the share of the plaintiff and each of the other co-tenure-holders." Under this rule the share of each co-tenure-holder is determined and its valuation is fixed. It is thus clear that in view of these statutory provisions a suit for the division of a holding under Section 176 of the Act, expressly involves division of the land revenue payable on the holding. The plaintiff has no choice in the matter. If he wants to avoid the separation of the land revenue of the holding, the suit could not be validly decreed. The plaintiff has no choice in the matter. If he wants to avoid the separation of the land revenue of the holding, the suit could not be validly decreed. In this view of the matter it is clear that the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and Patna High Court are not applicable to a suit under Section 176 of the Act. In view, of the Division Bench decision of our Court mentioned above the civil court had no jurisdiction to pass the final decree even though it was based upon a compromise between the parties. That decree was without jurisdiction and hence not enforceable.” 7. In fact, if para 7 of the judgment of Jairam Singh (Supra) is taken into consideration in its totality, it was a case where the Allahabad High Court was carving out an exception, on account of the implications of Section 178, which was then applicable over the proceedings, which were held under Section 178 of the Act, which postulated the modes of partition and it is because of this reason that the procedures which were regulating the process under Section 178 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, was regulated by the procedure which had been provided under Rule 157 of the Rules, as framed under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 8. To be very specific, if Rule 157 of the Rules, framed under the Act, is taken into consideration, which was the subject matter of the judgement of the Allahabad High Court, as referred in para 7, it was pertaining to as to what would be the modalities, the Court would have to adopt for the purposes of division of a property in the light of the principle provisions contained under Section 178 of the Act. 9. The provisions of Section 178 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, has had to be read independently, to the provisions contained under Section 176, as it has got altogether a different legal and procedural intention to be met with, and that is why the procedures in either of the Sections are independently governed by Rule 156 and 157 respectively. The impact of Ryle 157, will only come into play, when the Court frames a preliminary decree for partition as it contemplates the mode in which the division of a holding is to be carried by the Courts under Section 178, which is extracted hereunder :- “178. The impact of Ryle 157, will only come into play, when the Court frames a preliminary decree for partition as it contemplates the mode in which the division of a holding is to be carried by the Courts under Section 178, which is extracted hereunder :- “178. Mode of division of a holding – [(1) Except as provided in sub-section (3) whenever in a suit for (division) a court finds that the aggregate area of the holding or holdings to be (divided) does not exceed three and one-eighth acres, the court shall instead of proceeding to decide the holding or holdings, direct the sale of same and distribution of proceeds thereof, in accordance with such principles as may be prescribed.] (2) The rules framed under sub-section (1) shall prescribe the circumstances in which compensation may be awarded to a co-tenure-holder in lieu of his share of holding and for the admission by the [Land Management Committee] of such co-tenure-holder to land under provisions of Section 195. [(3) Where a co-tenure-holder has – (a) let out only a share in any holding under sub-section (2) of Section 157; or (b) duly acquired bhumidhari rights under Section 134 [as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977] with respect only to a share in any holding; The court shall divide the holding by separating the share aforesaid, but in respect of the remainder of the holding, the provisions of sub-section (1), if applicable, shall be followed.]” 10. The said provision cannot be read in parlance with the provisions contained under Section 176 of the Act, in order to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to attract the implications of para 7 of the judgement, alleging thereof that Rule 156, was not complied with, the reason being that Rule 156 and its compliance is necessitated only at the stage when the suit itself is instituted before the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, which, in the instant case, happens to be of 13th August 1999. 11. It is not a stage, which would be attracted, when as a consequence of a decree, when it is required to be executed as per the modes provided under Section 178, where Rule 157 has to be attracted and made applicable as provided under para 7 of the judgement. 11. It is not a stage, which would be attracted, when as a consequence of a decree, when it is required to be executed as per the modes provided under Section 178, where Rule 157 has to be attracted and made applicable as provided under para 7 of the judgement. Thus the reference made to para 7 in the light of the circumstances of the present case, would not be applicable in the matter at all. 12. There is another reason for not to accepting the argument extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner as defendant No. 51 to the Suit, had been diligently contesting the proceedings of the Suit under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, ever since its institution by way of filing of his written statement being paper No. 47/1 on 16.03.2002, before the learned Court below and the written statement thus filed by the petitioner on 16th March 2002, he has, at no point of time, ever raised an objection, that the suit, which was instituted by the plaintiff respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 herein on 13.08.1999 was bad because of the non compliance of Rule 156, because of the alleged fact that the plaint averments did not classified the property sought to be partitioned in the light of the details, which were prescribed to be given as per Rule 127 of the Rules, framed under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Though this argument of petitioner is belied from the overall reading of plaint, in fact, it did satisfy the provisions of Rule 127 of the Rules framed under the Act. 13. It's not even that. After the preparation of the preliminary decree by the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Class on 25th July 2008, the petitioner has himself voluntarily ventured into by preferring the First Appellate proceedings under Section 331 and if the Memorandum of Appeal is taken into consideration, (which is annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition), yet again not even a single ground has been taken by the petitioner in the Appeal itself, that the judgement of the trial Court, at all suffered from a non compliance of the provisions contained under Rule 156, dealing with the division of holding in a proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 14. 14. In that eventuality, when the provisions of Rule 156 mandates an inscription of conditions of Rule 127, in the plaint, particularly, at the time of institution of the suit itself, this Court is of the view, that Rule 156 is not a substantive provisions, which determines a right of a person or parties who was party to the suit, but its rather procedural in nature, only for the purposes of facilitating the Court, in the decision making process, to come to a logical conclusion for deciding the suit and that is why, the inscription of the details provided under Rule 127 which is attracted by its sub Rule 1 to 6, its required to be given in the plaint at the stage when it was instituted. Having not done so and the petitioner since had submitted himself through its proceedings at this writ stage under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when the Court is exercising its supervisory jurisdiction while scrutinizing the judgement itself; the said scope of argument is not available as per the opinion of this Court because the provisions of Rule 156 is only procedural in nature and is not a substantive provisions determining the rights of the parties under litigation. 15. There is another reason for not accepting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the fact that it is not being brought within the ambit of the judgment of Allahabad High Court, relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner for the reason being, that if the preliminary decree which was framed in the partition Suit No. 27/03 of 1998-99, as drawn by the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Class dated 25th July 2008, if that itself is taken into consideration, the intention of Rule 156, has been met with, particularly when the preliminary decree for its execution itself was prepared based upon a report of the Amin, which was called for on 12th September 1999, which had specifically provided and dealt with all the parameters, which were required to be attracted by Rule 127 of the Rules of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. In that eventuality, the basic purpose and intention of Rule 156 has been met with; by the report of an Amin dated 12th September 1999. In that eventuality, the basic purpose and intention of Rule 156 has been met with; by the report of an Amin dated 12th September 1999. Even otherwise also, if at all, the petitioner had any grudge as against the preliminary decree or its enforcements, first of all, the modalities of enforcement contemplated under Section 178 of the Act, will not be attracted to be made applicable to be attracted when the writ petition is being argued, as the provisions of Section 178 stood omitted in its applicability, to the State of Uttarakhand by an Act No. 12 of 2006, as notified on 17th October 2006, and as a consequence thereto, once the principle Section has been omitted in its applicability, then obviously the Rule 157 too, would automatically have the same implications being subordinate legislation, and thus too in the light of the omission, the ratio of para 7 of the judgement of the Allahabad High Court, would not apply in the instant case. 16. There is another reason for not to accept the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the proceedings under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, are governed by the provisions contained under Section 341 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which attracts procedure to be made applicable as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. 17. In that eventuality, when the decree itself is put to execution, all contentions to the contrary would be still left open for the petitioner to be agitated at the execution stage itself, excluding the objection taken with regard to Rule 156 of the Act. 18. Subject to above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed.