Allahabad High Court
Krishnapal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 February, 2013
Author: Ran Vijai Singh
Bench: Ran Vijai Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4154 of 2013 Petitioner :- Krishnapal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Manoj Kumar Gautam Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.
Sri M,K. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel Sri A.K. Umrao appearing on behalf of Gaon Sabha for the respondent.
The laches in filing the writ petition have been explained.
Latches are ignored and the writ petition taken up for final disposal.
The father of the petitioners was granted lease of the Land belonging to Gaon Sabha on 4.9.1954. Pursuant thereto a certificate was also issued to him on the prescribed format by the Chairman of the Land Management Committee(L.M.C.) which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
Petitioners are in possession and in use of the aforesaid land ever since 1954. It appears that the Lekhpal of the village submitted a report that the aforesaid lease was an Assami lease for the period of 5 years which has expired and therefore, the lease granted to the father of the petitioners is liable to be cancelled. On the said report, the S.D.O. on 14.5.1999 had passed a one word order "Swikrat" meaning that he accepted the report.
The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioners by filing this writ petition on the ground that it is an unreasoned order. It has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and as such is no order in the eyes of law. The father of the petitioners was never granted any Assami lease.
These aspects have not been considered as the petitioners were neither issued any notice nor given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. It is for this reason that the defence of the petitioners now taken in the writ petition could not come before the S.D.O. The S.D.O. has simply placed reliance upon report of the Lekhpal in passing the impugned order. He had not made any enquiry or any effort to go into the question of the nature of the lease granted to the petitioners' father. The order impugned is incomplete violation of the principles of natural justice and is a result of complete non-application of mind.
This court in 2005 (98) RD 454 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Collector/ District Magistrate Kanpur Dehat and others has strongly condemned the attitude of the Revenue Officers/Courts in passing a non-speaking orders granting approval and disapproval without assigning any reasons. The order 'approved as proposed" passed by the S.D.O. was held to be void and nonest and no order in the eye of law.
In another case his Lordship of this court vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2009 passed in the Writ Petition No. 61944 of 2009 (Harpal & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) while dealing with a similar kind of order passed by the S.D.O. has frowned upon the Revenue Officers and the Courts and has observed :-
"The Court is rather shocked to know that sub Divisional Officers are passing one word orders which materially affect the rights of parties. If the sole purpose of S.D.O. is to approve the report of Lekhpal then there is absolutely no need to maintain the office of S.D.O. It will be more appropriate to delegate the powers of S.D.O. to Lekhpal. It is rather shameful for the S.D.Os. to blindly approve the reports of Lekhpals. It virtually amounts to acceptance of supremacy of Lekhpal by S.D.O."
The court further went on to observe as under:-
"If the present S.D.O. is not capable of passing a reasoned order then D.M. shall hear the matter by himself..............
D.M./Collector Bijnore is directed to examine the working of all the S.D.Os. in his district particularly the S.D.O. who passed the order dated 16.01.2009."
The Revenue Officers and the Revenue Courts despite such strong condemnation by the court are not taking care to improve themselves and to abide by the directions that a Judicial order ought to be informed by reasons. Such an attitude on part of the Revenue Officers/Courts is highly deplorable.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned dated 9.9.2002 passed by the S.D.O., Dhampur is quashed with the direction to the District Magistrate to get the matter redecided in accordance with law by another S.D.O. as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months.
Order Date :- 7.2.2013 Priyanka