Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2430 (ALL)

Shiv Bachan Yadav v. State of U. P.

2023-10-27

SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manish Dev Singh alongwith Sri V.K. Jaiswal, learned counsels for the respondent Nos. 4 to 22, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep SingSh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 23-Gaon Sabha. 2. The respondent Nos. 25 to 31 are the proforma respondents. As they are the plaintiffs in the Suit in question alongwith the petitioners as such, notice is not necessarily required to be issued to them as their claims are conjoined with the petitioners. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the present Writ Petition at the admission stage itself. 4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: ''(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6.7.2023 (Annexure 7) passed by the respondent No. 2 and order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure 6) passed by respondent No. 3 together with quash the entire proceeding of Appeal No. 177 of 2020, Computerize No. C202016000000177 (Ram Lakhan Yadav and others v. Ramjatan Yadav and others), pending in the Court of Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur/respondent No. 3. (ii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'' 5. The relevant facts leading to the instant Writ Petition, as narrated by the parties are that the petitioners filed a Suit under Section 229-B/176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 before the Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Robertganj, Sonebhadra against the contesting respondents. The said Suit (Ramjatan Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others) was registered as Case No. RST/07803/2019 (Computerised Case No. T-201916660107803) and was decided vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2020. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.10.2020, the contesting respondents preferred an Appeal on 21.10.2020, under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) which was registered as Appeal No. 177 of 2020, Computerised No. C202016000000177 (Ram Lakhan Yadav and others v. Ramjatan Yadav and others). 7. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.10.2020, the contesting respondents preferred an Appeal on 21.10.2020, under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) which was registered as Appeal No. 177 of 2020, Computerised No. C202016000000177 (Ram Lakhan Yadav and others v. Ramjatan Yadav and others). 7. The learned Court of Commissioner, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) vide order dated 26.10.2021 accepted the aforesaid Appeal, issued notices to the opposite parties and summoned the records from the learned Trial Court. 8. Pending the aforesaid Appeal, the contesting respondents also filed a Revision assailing the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Robertganj, Sonebhadra. The said Revision under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 filed before the Board of Revenue at Prayagraj (respondent No. 2) was registered as Revision No. 1651 of 2020. 9. The aforesaid Revision was dismissed vide order dated 11.8.2021 passed by the learned Board of Revenue at Prayagraj (respondent No. 2), on the ground that since the revisionist/petitioners have already availed the remedy of Appeal before the learned Court of Commissioner and as such has exhausted the option of filing the Revision before the learned Board of Revenue. In view of the same the said Revision is not maintainable. 10. The Petitioner then filed a Revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the learned Board of Revenue (respondent No. 2) assailing the aforesaid order dated 26.10.2021 passed by Court of Commissioner, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3), which was registered as Case No. REV/2674/2021/Sonebhadra. 11. By means of the aforesaid Revision, the petitioners challenged the Order dated 26.10.2021 whereby the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) accepted the Appeal No. 177 of 2020 for admission, under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, filed by the contesting respondents wherein the ''order decree dated 14.10.2020'' is under challenged. The bone of contention as raised by the petitioners in the said Revision is that the memorandum of Appeal does not accompany the certified copy of the decree, as such, the said Appeal is liable to be dismissed being inherently defective. 12. The bone of contention as raised by the petitioners in the said Revision is that the memorandum of Appeal does not accompany the certified copy of the decree, as such, the said Appeal is liable to be dismissed being inherently defective. 12. The contesting respondents on 15.3.2022 filed a copy of the decree dated 19.10.2020 prepared in pursuance of the judgement and order dated 14.10.2020 alongwith an application duly supported by an affidavit, inter alia, explaining the reasons for not filing the said decree earlier and praying for the condonation of delay in filing the aforementioned decree before the learned Court of Commissioner, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) in Appeal No. 177 of 2020. 13. The above-mentioned Revision having Case No. REV/2674/2021/Sonebhadra was dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue (respondent No. 2) vide order dated 6.7.2023. While dismissing the said revision, the learned Board of Revenue recorded a categorical finding that Rule 182 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 clearly provides that an appeal or revision preferred against any order or decree passed under any provisions of the Code, is maintainable provided a certified copy of such order or decree is accompanied with the memorandum of appeal or revision, unless such copy is dispensed with by the Court or officer concerned and therefore, First Appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is very well maintainable against a final order or decree passed in any suit, application or the proceedings mentioned therein. Since the certified copy of the order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer has been filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal although the certified copy of the decree dated 19.10.2020 has not been annexed in the appeal, even then the Appeal is maintainable. 14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 6.7.2023 passed by the learned Board of Revenue (respondent No. 2) in Revision having Case No. REV/2674/2021/Sonebhadra and order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) in Appeal No. 177 of 2020, the petitioners preferred the instant writ petition. 15. The contentions as raised by Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners are as under: 15.1. 15. The contentions as raised by Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners are as under: 15.1. He submits that the statutory provisions of appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 182 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides a bar to entertain an appeal, in absence of the decree and even Section 331(3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 provides that an appeal shall lie against a decree. Since in the present case, certified copy of the decree dated 19.10.2020 has not been filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal, the Appeal No. 177 of 2020 is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 15.2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is a substantive provision and its corresponding Rule 183 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 does not specify the necessary documents that should accompany the memorandum of appeal. Therefore, the said Section is to be read in the light of Section 214 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply in respect of the appeal as provided under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Since, the Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with the procedure of filing an appeal wherein it is mandatory for the appellant to file a certified copy of the decree alongwith the memorandum of appeal, this mandate is indispensable unless leave for the same is granted by the appellate Court as per the proviso to Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 1 in Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. His contention is that as the procedure for filing an appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it was thus, mandatory for the appellant/contesting respondents to file a certified copy of the decree alongwith the memorandum of appeal. 15.3. His contention is that as the procedure for filing an appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it was thus, mandatory for the appellant/contesting respondents to file a certified copy of the decree alongwith the memorandum of appeal. 15.3. Further, he submitted that Section 214 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with and Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provide that, unless otherwise expressly provided by or under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to every suit and plaint for division for holdings, then, an appeal arising out of a suit and plaint of division of several holdings under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will also be governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and specifically by Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order XLI Rule 1. 15.4. He further argued that an Appeal lies only against a decree and not against a judgment as provided under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi v. Ram Phal, (2003) 9 SCC 606 and Harishankar v. Jay Deyee, (2000) 39 ALR 120 (Alld). 15.5. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended vide Allahabad High Court Amendments; the Court may, for sufficient reasons, accept a memorandum of appeal without a copy of decree appealed from, if the counsel for the appellant certifies that a copy of the same will be filed subsequently within the time granted by the Court. However, it is an admitted fact that no decree was prepared prior to 19.10.2020, while the appellant/contesting respondents in the appeal have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 14.10.2020 and nowhere mentioned in the entire memorandum of appeal, the explanation for not challenging the decree dated 19.10.2020 or have explained the reason for non-filing of the same alongwith the appeal. 15.6. 15.6. Further, he argued that throughout the proceeding upto the Board of Revenue, the appellant/contesting respondents did not disclose the fact that they have filed the decree before the Court of learned Commissioner, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) and for the first time by means of the supplementary-affidavit dated 8.8.2023, the appellants/contesting respondents have brought this fact on record before this Court that they have filed the said decree dated 19.10.2020 before the Appellate Court on 15.3.2022; that too after a lapse of about 16 months. 15.7. Further, the prayer made in the Appeal bearing Appeal No. 177 of 2020 is for setting aside the ''Order Decree dated 14.10.2020'' and since the Decree was prepared on 19.10.2020, as such no decree existed on 14.10.2020. As the basis of the entire proceeding rests upon the prayer for setting aside the ''Order Decree'', the defective prayer as mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal in Appeal bearing Appeal No. 177 of 2020 renders the entire proceeding of the said Appeal illegal. 15.8. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel has placed before this Court, a judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Amarjeet v. State of U.P., 2021(3) ADJ 312 (LB) and has prayed that the present writ petition be decided in the light of the said judgment. 16. Per contra, Sri Manish Dev Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 22; opposing the instant writ petition made the following submissions: 16.1. His first submission is that the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) is an innocuous order by means of which the aforesaid Appeal has simply been entertained by issuing notices to the opposite parties. The petitioners have every opportunity to agitate the grounds that have been raised in the present writ petition; before the learned Commissioner, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) and on this score, the present writ petition is not entertainable in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goderej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer, cum Accessing authority and others, AIR 2023 SC 781 . 16.2. Further, he has refuted the petitioner's argument regarding the non-filing of the Decree dated 19.10.2020 alongwith the Memorandum of Appeal. 16.2. Further, he has refuted the petitioner's argument regarding the non-filing of the Decree dated 19.10.2020 alongwith the Memorandum of Appeal. He submits that the Decree dated 19.10.2020 as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition is not a decree, as the same is not in consonance with the draft of legislature as provided under Order XX Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and as such, the very basis of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of substance. 16.3. Moreover, the learned counsel has contended that the even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the appeal was defective as it did not contain the Decree, in that event, it was incumbent upon the office of the appellate Court to point out the said defect, if any, and as such negligence on part of the office concerned does not prejudice the right of the parties concerned/contesting respondents. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Bhargava, AIR 1961 SC 832 . 16.4. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondents also urged that from a bare perusal of Order XLI Rule 1 read with the Allahabad High Court Amendments and the amendment by the Act No. 46 of 1999, came in effect from 1.7.2002, that provides that the Memorandum of Appeal must not necessarily be accompanied by a copy of the decree rather the Memorandum of Appeal must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment and this alone is the mandatory requirement under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, a copy of the impugned judgment appealed against has been annexed with the Memorandum of Appeal, it must, therefore, necessarily be held that the appeal is competent and has rightly been entertained. 17. I have heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. It is not disputed that the appeal in question has been filed under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 17. I have heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. It is not disputed that the appeal in question has been filed under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Therefore, before entering into the question involved in the instant writ petition, it is necessary to appreciate the provisions of Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, for ready reference, the same is extracted hereinbelow, ''207. First appeal.-(1) Any party aggrieved by a final order or decree passed in any suit, application or proceeding specified in Column 2 of the Third Schedule, may prefer a first appeal to the Court or officer specified against it in Column 4, where such order or decree was passed by a Court or officer specified against it in Column 3 thereof. (2) A first appeal shall also lie against an order of the nature specified - (a) in Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; or (b) in Section 104 of the said Code; or (c) in Order XLIII Rule 1 of the First Schedule to the said Code. (3) The period of limitation for filing a first appeal under this section shall be thirty days from the date of the order or decree appealed against.'' 19. Although, from the perusal of the aforesaid Section 207 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it is apparent that an Appeal can be filed by any party aggrieved by a final order or decree passed in any suit, application or proceeding specified therein. But, in order to deal with the question posed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 207 is a substantive provision and its corresponding Rule 183 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 does not specify the documents necessary to accompany the memorandum of appeal, therefore, the provisions of Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to the appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in the light of Section 214 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the following discussion has become necessary. 20. In order to determine this question, it would be apt to go through Section 214 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 that deals with the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Limitation Act, 1963. 20. In order to determine this question, it would be apt to go through Section 214 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 that deals with the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Limitation Act, 1963. For a ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinbelow, ''214. Applicability of the 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.'' The corresponding rule to the aforesaid Section 214 relevant for the present case is Rule 188 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016. For a ready reference, Sub-Rule (1) of the same is extracted below, ''188. Provisions of the Code to apply (Section 214).-(1) Where in relation to any suit, application or proceedings under the code, any express provision has been made in the said code or these rules or Regulations made thereunder, the provisions of the Code, these rules or regulations will apply, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or the Limitation Act, 1963. 21. From a conjoint reading of the aforesaid Section 214 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Rule 188 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016, it is apparent that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to any suit, application or proceeding under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 when no 'express' provision is provided in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in that regard. 22. The term 'express' has an explicit connotation to it. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maru Ram and others v. Union of India and others, (1981) 1 SCC 107 , while discussing the phraseology of the terms 'specific' and 'express' referred to the Full Court judgment of this Court in the case of Emperor v. Baldeo, AIR 1940 All 263 , wherein it was observed in paragraph 36 that, ''36. .....For a provision of a statute to be an 'express' provision affecting another statute or part of it, it would have, I think, to refer in so many words to the other statute or to the relevant portion of it and also to the effect intended to be produced on it. .....For a provision of a statute to be an 'express' provision affecting another statute or part of it, it would have, I think, to refer in so many words to the other statute or to the relevant portion of it and also to the effect intended to be produced on it. Failing this, it could hardly be said to be 'express' ......'' 23. The antithesis of the aforesaid proposition is that for a specific purpose, a Statute 'A' will not be applicable to another Statute 'B' for that specific purpose when the provision for that specific purpose is already present in the Statue 'B'. Therefore, had there been no express provision for the procedure of filing an appeal under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, then, of course, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would have been applied to appeals filed under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in the light of Section 214 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 24. It would not be out of place to discuss the provisions of Rule 182 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereinbelow, ''182. Certified copy of the order or decree to be enclosed.-Where an appeal or revision against any order or decree is preferred under any provision of the Code, a certified copy of such order or decree shall accompany the memorandum of appeal or revision, unless such copy is dispensed with by the Court or officer concerned.'' 25. The aforementioned Rule 182 elucidates that the necessary documents which should accompany the memorandum of appeal preferred under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, are a 'certified copy of such order or decree'. From the bare reading of the language of the Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 183 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016, it is abundantly clear that the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 itself contains the express provision in respect of the modalities of filing an appeal and as such, the provisions of Section 214 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is not attracted herein. 26. It is a well-settled rule of interpretation that in a situation when there is a conflict between the provisions of statues on the same issue, the provisions of special statute shall prevail over the general statute. 26. It is a well-settled rule of interpretation that in a situation when there is a conflict between the provisions of statues on the same issue, the provisions of special statute shall prevail over the general statute. A co-ordinate bench of this Court has dealt with the said subject-matter in detail, in the case of Amarjeet (Supra), wherein it has been held that the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 being a special law, covering all land tenures and dealing with land revenue and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto while the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a general law relating to procedures in cases which are of civil nature. For a ready reference, paragraph 50 of the said judgment in reproduced hereinbelow, ''50. .....If we consider the Long Title of UP Revenue Code 2006 which says that it is an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to land tenures and land revenue in the State of U.P., and to provide for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto, it is evident that the Act is a special law covering all land tenures and dealing with land revenue and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.'' 27. Now coming to Rule 188 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 that contains a non-obstante clause that ''Where in relation to any suit, application or proceedings under the code, any express provision has been made in the said code or these rules or Regulations made thereunder, the provisions of the Code, these rules or regulations will apply, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or the Limitation Act, 1963''. 28. It is to be noted that a non-obstante clause in a particular Section of the statute adjoins two parts of the same section to confer prevalence of one part upon the other connected part of that section, thereby granting an overriding effect to one part of the section over other part within the same section or any other legislation which has been referenced in the non-obstante clause. Essentially, it signifies that despite the stipulations of the Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause, the provisions mentioned before the non-obstante clause will retain its full legal effect, and the provisions listed in the non-obstante clause will not impede the operation of the enactment or the provision in which the non-obstante clause is situated. Essentially, it signifies that despite the stipulations of the Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause, the provisions mentioned before the non-obstante clause will retain its full legal effect, and the provisions listed in the non-obstante clause will not impede the operation of the enactment or the provision in which the non-obstante clause is situated. Once a non-obstante clause has been appended to a particular part of the section it overrides the effect of the part of the section to which it is appended irrespective that the section or the statute to which it refers enacted something to the contrary. (Emphasis Supplied) 29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. and others, (2006) 10 SCC 452 , while discussing the effect of a non-obstante clause appended to a section of a statute, observed that the non-obstante nature of a provision, although, may be of wide amplitude, the interpretive process thereof must be kept confined to the legislative policy and must be given effect to, to the extent that the Parliament intended and not beyond the same. 30. Further, with the regards to the legislative intention to prevent the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of certain proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc., (2005) 2 SCC 145 , observed that the non-obstante clause in a section is indicative of legislature's intention to prevent the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of civil proceedings on the original side of the High Courts, which are to be governed by the Rules made by the High Court. These rules which the High Court makes will prevail over the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 31. Therefore, it can be logically concluded that a non-obstante clause is a clear indicator of the intention of the legislature with regards to the impact of the non-obstante clause to the particular section of the statute in which it is placed. 32. While interpreting a statute or a provision of the statute, the intention of the legislature must be borne in mind. If the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, then such words should be interpreted in their natural and ordinary sense. This, in itself, best declares the intention of the legislature. 32. While interpreting a statute or a provision of the statute, the intention of the legislature must be borne in mind. If the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, then such words should be interpreted in their natural and ordinary sense. This, in itself, best declares the intention of the legislature. In this regard, the passage from the judgment passed in the case of Sussex Peerage Claim [(1844) 11 Ce & Fin 85, 143: 8 ER 1034 (HL)], as quoted by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and another, (1988) 2 SCC 602 at Paragraph 70, still holds the commonly accepted view concerning the relationship between the literal and mischief rules of interpretation of statutes. The said passage from the judgment passed in the case of Sussex Peerage Claim (Supra), is also quoted hereinbelow, ''The only rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in that natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such case, best declare the intention of the lawgiver. But if any doubt arises from the terms employed by the legislature, it has always been held a safe means of collecting the intention, to call in aid the ground and cause of making the statute, and to have recourse to the preamble, which, according to Chief Justice Dyer, Stowell v. Lord Zouch [(1569) 1 Plowd 353, 369 : 75 ER 536], is 'a key to open the minds of the makers of the Act, and the mischiefs which they intend to redress'.'' 33. Further, in the case of A.R. Antulay (Supra), it was also categorically held that the creation of rights requires legislative authority. Courts cannot create a right which has not been given by the legislature. In a similar way, Courts cannot take away a right granted by the legislature unless such a right is in contravention to any law for the time being or such a right is ultra vires to the basic structure of the Constitution of India. 34. Courts cannot create a right which has not been given by the legislature. In a similar way, Courts cannot take away a right granted by the legislature unless such a right is in contravention to any law for the time being or such a right is ultra vires to the basic structure of the Constitution of India. 34. In the present case, Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 182 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 coupled with Section 214 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 188 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 makes it abundantly clear that there exists an express provision governing the substantive as well as the procedural aspects regarding an appeal in and under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and in the presence of this express provision of appeal, the substantive and procedural law regarding the appeal will be governed by the said provisions mentioned in and under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, notwithstanding any procedure regarding the appeal enumerated in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 35. Now, having ruled out the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the appeals under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it has come to light that the procedure for filing an appeal under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is self-contained, independent and explicit. 36. Further, Rule 182 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 clearly provides that for filing an appeal or revision against any order or decree, a certified copy of such order or decree shall accompany the memorandum of appeal or revision, unless such copy is dispensed with by the Court or officer concerned. The legislative intend in this regard is abundantly clear from the unambiguous words used in the aforementioned Section 207 and Rule 182 (Supra) and as such the words mentioned therein will be interpreted in their natural and ordinary sense. 37. In so far as the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents regarding the correctness of the Decree dated 19.10.2020 is concerned, in the present set of facts and circumstances as mentioned above, this Court does not find it necessary to delve into the said issue. However, it is open for the parties, if they so desire, to raise the said issue before the Appellate Court itself. 38. However, it is open for the parties, if they so desire, to raise the said issue before the Appellate Court itself. 38. In view of all that is discussed hereinabove, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 6.7.2023 passed by the learned Board of Revenue (respondent No. 1) and the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) and as such does not find any cogent reason that warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 39. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.