Allahabad High Court
Anupam Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 26 May, 2023
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118039 Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15186 of 2023 Petitioner :- Anupam Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bheshaj Puri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sher Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Pankaj Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the writ petition at the admission stage itself.
3. By means of present writ petition the petitioners have assailed the validity of order dated 15.02.2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly thereby dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioners against order dated 31.03.2011, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fareedpur, Bareilly whereby patta of the petitioners has been cancelled.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners along with certain other persons was eligible for being granted agricultural patta and consequently after following due procedure wherein their names were included in the final list prepared by Land Management Committee by means of order dated 20.5.2010 and a patta was granted by Sub Divisional Magistrate in favour of the petitioners. In pursuance of the said patta name of the petitioners was duly mutated in the revenue records with bhumidiari and non-transferable rights and since then they are in possession of the said land. Subsequently, by a report of Lekhpal dated 22.12.2010 it was stated that it is due to clerical error that the name of the petitioners was entered into revenue record as patta holders wrongly, while their names should not have been included. The ex-parte order dated 22.12.2010 was passed which was registered under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Code before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Fareedpur, Bareillly. The aforesaid officer proceeded to pass ex-parte order deleting the entries made in favour of the petitioners in the revenue records by means of order dated 31.03.2011.
5. It has been submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 31.3.2011 name of the petitioners as well as first patta holders were deleted from the revenue records. The petitioners on coming to know of the order dated 31.3.2011 preferred revision before Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly which was registered as revision No.122/2011. Subsequently considering the entire matter, an interim order was also granted in favour of the petitioners for maintaining status quo but in the interregnum period during pendency of the revision the consolidation proceedings were commenced by publication of notice under Section 4A 2 of Consolidation of Holdings Act and on commencement of consolidation proceedings the revision preferred by the petitioners stood abated. It is further submitted that consolidation proceedings with regard to the village of the petitioners did not continue and notification was issued under Section 6 (1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act separating the petitioners village from the consolidation proceedings as a consequence to which status-quo over the land was maintained. When the consolidation proceedings were dropped the petitioners moved application for recall and for restoration of the revisional order pending before the Additional Commissioner. This application for recall was considered by Additional Commissioner who by means of the impugned order has rejected the same.
6. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the previous occasion also revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by means of order dated 07.09.2021, against which the petitioners approached this Court by means of Writ-C No. 28109 of 2021, which was allowed by means of order dated 28.10.2021 and the matter was remanded back to the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly to hear the petitioners and after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned decide the matter by means of reasoned and speaking order within six months.
7. It is in pursuance to directions issued by this Court on 28.10.2021, the Additional Commissioner passed order dated 15.02.2023, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.
8. Perusal of impugned order indicates that revision has been dismissed only by recording stand of the respondents where they have stated that allotment was previously made in favour of the petitioners erroneously and there was no approval by the competent authority. Prior to allotment of said patta, despite the fact that petitioners had taken a ground that the cancellation order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Additional Commissioner has passed the order without considering the grounds raised by the petitioners nor addressed the issue pertaining to cancellation of their pattas without giving them any opportunity of hearing.
9. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
10. It is settled proposition of law that principles of natural justice are not mere an empty formality and while exercising revisional powers the Additional Commissioner was bound to consider the grounds raised by the petitioners and only then necessary orders should have been passed thereupon. In the present case the Additional Commissioner without considering the grounds raised by the petitioners has dismissed their revision merely on the submissions of the respondents which is clearly illegal and arbitrary and the Additional Commissioner had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and consequently on this ground alone the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
11. In the light of above, impugned order dated 15.03.2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly for passing fresh orders in accordance with law, considering the fact that only hearing has to take place, hence the revision of the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously, say within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of.
13. In case any protection was granted to the petitioners at the time when impugned order was passed, same protection shall be available to them till final orders are passed by the Additional Commissioner.
Order Date :- 26.5.2023 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)