Allahabad High Court
Siddh Nath And Others vs Additional Commissioner-Iiird Devi ... on 7 February, 2023
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 995 of 2023 Petitioner :- Siddh Nath And Others Respondent :- Additional Commissioner-Iiird Devi Patan Mandal Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard.
In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent No. 4 is dispensed with.
By means of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1-Additional Commissioner-IIIrd, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in Revision No. 541 of 2017, Computerized Case No.C20170800541 (Dharnidhar Pandey & others vs. Radhyeshyam), filed under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") and the order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the opposite party No.2-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Payagpur, District-Bahraich, in the demarcation proceedings initiated under Section 41 of the Act of 1901.
It is stated that an application under Section 41 of the Act of 1901 was filed for demarcation by Radhey Shyam (opposite party No.4), which was allowed vide order dated 27.07.2017 by the opposite party No.2. This order was passed without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as such, the petitioners preferred a revision under Section 219 of the Act of 1901 and the revisional authority without considering the relevant aspects of the case particularly that the order dated 27.07.2017 was passed by the opposite party No.2 without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, declined to interfere in the order dated 27.07.2017 vide its order dated 02.01.2023, impugned herein.
Further submission is that it is settled principle that any order causing prejudice to the concerned even by the Administrative authorities ought to have been passed after providing proper opportunity of hearing. Thus, the indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.
Opposing the present petition for the relief sought, learned counsel for the State-Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey stated that present petition relates to demarcation proceedings, which is summary in nature, as such, this petition neither entertainable nor maintainable.
He further submitted that the revisional authority while declining to interfere in the order of the opposite party No.2 dated 27.07.2017 has provided the opportunity to the petitioners which is to the effect that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the demarcation, they may move fresh application for demarcation as such also no interference is required in the matter.
He also submitted that in the proceedings if initiated by the petitioners for demarcation, the opposite party No.2 would issue notice to the concerned persons including the opposite party No.4, as such, he would not be prejudiced and proper opportunity would be provided by the opposite party No.2 to the parties.
Considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including the impugned orders.
Admitted facts of the case are to the effect that for the purposes of demarcation the case was fixed on 27.07.2017 and on the same date the case was disposed of finally by the opposite party No.2, which was filed under Section 41 of the Act of 1901 by one Radhey Shyam and on the said date the petitioner was not present. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2017, a revision was filed in which the revisional authority passed the order dated 02.01.2023. Both these orders have been assailed by the petitioners in the present petition.
It would be apt here to refer the operative portion of the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1, which on reproduction reads as under:-
"nksuksa i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k }kjk izLrqr dh x;h fyf[kr cgl rFkk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; ,oa voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd voj U;k;ky; ds le{k jk/ks';ke ¼foi{kh½ dh vksj ls /kjuh/kj vkfn] tks bl U;k;ky; esa fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dh gSfl;r ls i{kdkj gS] dks crkSj foi{kh i{kdkj eqdnek cukrs gq, xkVk la[;k&1240 ds lhekadu dk okn ;ksftr fd;k x;k] ftlesa jktLo fujh{kd }kjk viuh lhekadu vk[;k fnukafdr 12-07-2016] ftls rglhynkj }kjk fnukad 20-07-2016 dks vxzlkfjr fd;k x;k gS] voj U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;kA mDr vk[;k esa xkVk la[;k&1240 ds dfri; Hkw&Hkkx ij fuxjkuhdrkZ /kjuh/kj dk dCtk ik;k x;kA fnukad 27-07-2017 dks voj U;k;ky; ds le{k iqdkj ds le; fuxjkuhdrkZx.k /kjuh /kj ik.Ms; vkfn dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gqvk] ftl ij voj U;k;ky; }kjk fuxjkuhdrkZx.k ¼voj U;k;ky; esa izfroknh½ ds fo:) ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh xfreku djrs gq, jktLo fujh{kd ds lhekadu vk[;k dh iqf"V iz'uxr vkns'k fnukad 27-07-2017 ds ek/;e ls dh x;h gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd lhekadu gsrq jktLo foHkkx fo'ks"kK foHkkx gS] tks fd ekSds dh fLFkfr ds vuqlkj iSekb'k dk dk;Z djrk gSA ;fn fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dks iz'uxr vkns'k ls dksbZ {kqC/krk gS] rks og vius xkVs dk lhekadu djkus ds fy, iw.kZr;k LorU= gSA jktLo fujh{kd dh lhekadu vk[;k esa fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dk dCtk xkVk la[;k&1240 ij ik;k x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij gh iz'uxr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA fuxjkuhdrkZx.k }kjk izLrqr dh x;h fuxjkuh cyghu gS] tks fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr fuxjkuh cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSA fuxjkuh esa ;fn dksbZ LFkxukns'k ikfjr gS] rks mls okil fy;k tkrk gSA vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh okil Hksth tk;sA bl U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh nkf[ky nQ~rj dh tk;sA"
It transpires from the order dated 02.01.2023, impugned herein, that the revisional authority provided liberty to the petitioner to prefer afresh application for demarcation in relation to the plot(s)/gata(s) of which the petitioners are the owner in possession.
Considering aforesaid facts of the case particularly the liberty granted by the opposite party No.1-Additional Commissioner-IIIrd, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda to the petitioners to move afresh application for demarcation of plot(s)/gata(s) of which they are the owner, this Court is not inclined to entertain present petition. It is accordingly dismissed with liberty to petitioners to move a fresh application for demarcation of these plot(s)/gata(s) as given in the order impugned dated 02.01.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1-Additional Commissioner-IIIrd, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda.
It goes without saying that the authority concerned would provide proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned while deciding the application for demarcation, if preferred by the petitioners in terms of the order dated 02.01.2023.
Order Date :- 7.2.2023 Vinay/-