Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 3 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46747 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30165 of 2024 Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Chandra,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
1. Heard Sri Amar Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Narayan Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 & 2.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief :-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing impugned order dated 01.06.2024 (Annexure -1) on Restoration application dated 13.03.2024 and order dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure-2) on Restoration application dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly in Revision No.28/2010, under Section 219 of U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act, Amit Kumar versus Jay Ram and others.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents-authorities to restrain respondents from interfering in peaceful possession of petitioner over the land in dispute, during pendency of writ petition/revision pending before Respondent no.2.
(c) ..........................
(d) ..........................."
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders dated 01.06.2024 and 20.02.2024 passed on restoration applications dated 13.03.2024 and 19.05.2023 respectively by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly in Revision No.28/2010, (Amit Kumar versus Jay Ram and others), under Section 219 of U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act, were passed without due service of notice upon the petitioner and as such the same are nonest having being passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording due opportunity to the petitioner to present his case.
4. This Court vide order dated 24.09.2024, took cognizance of the matter and passed a detailed order. For convenience relevant portion of the same is extracted below :-
"3. While going through the record, it is clear that on the restoration application filed by the petitioner, an order dated 05.02.2024 was filed by the respondent No.2 by which the next date was fixed on 13.03.2024, therefore, there is no occasion to pass an order before the next date fixed in the matter, i.e., on 13.03.2024. From perusal of Page 16 of the petition that the said Restoration Application was rejected by the respondent No.2 on the ground that certain directions were given by the Commissioner for speedy disposal of Restoration Application and in this view of the matter, the Restoration Application has been rejected. It is settled law that no authority would hear the matter prior to the date fixed in the matter and in case, in an extreme condition, the date would be preponed, the proper notice regarding preponment of date be given to the party concerned.
4. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is clear that the date was preponed on 20.02.2024 and no notice regarding preponment has been given to the petitioner and the restoration Application has been rejected in an ex-parte manner without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.2 is per se illegal and in complete violation of principles of natural justice.
5. In this view of the matter, Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Bareilly Division Bareilly/respondent No.2 is directed to file his personal affidavit within a week explaining that under what circumstances, such kind of orders had been passed by him violating the principles of natural justice and why the matter should not be referred to the State Government for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him for passing such kind of orders."
5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly (respondent no.2) filed her personal affidavit dated 29.09.2024, which is available on record. In the said affidavit, to justify the impugned orders it has been stated that the order dated 01.06.2024 was passed on the application of the petitioner because at that time no order sheet could be generated for case of restoration application on RCCMS portal. However, the same was passed in the presence of the petitioner. In paragraph nos.5 to 9 of the said affidavit, the respondent no.2 defended her action and the impugned order in the following manner :-
"5. That it is most respectfully submitted here that petitioner has preferred a belated revision bearing no.28/2010 against order dated 21.07.2010 however this revision has got dismissed by order dated 30.10.2013 in absence of petitioner against which petitioner has filed a restoration application on 19.05.2023, this restoration application has been listed on 05.02.2024 however next date 13.03.2024 has been fixed in this matter.
6. That it is most respectfully submitted here that the State Government issued direction for expeditious disposal of old revenue cases and in this regard a Government order dated 07.08.2023 has been issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and in pursuance thereof the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly by his letter dated 14.12.2023 directed to decide the oldest revenue cases on priority basis. True copy of Government order dated 07.08.2023 and letter dated 14.12.2023 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure PA No.1 to this personal affidavit.
7. That it is most respectfully submitted here that the restoration application has been fixed for hearing on 13.03.2024 however the deponent issued a letter dated 14.02.2024 to revisionist/petitioner Amit Kumar for informing preponment of case by fixing 20.02.2024. It is further directed to Tahsildar, Faridpur, District Bareilly to serve the notice to revisionist and submitted a report before the court in this regard, when the official concerned (taamila karmchari) reached on address of petitioner/revisionist then he has not found in his village and in this regard report dated 17.02.2024 has been sent by the Tamila Karmchari with the signature of witnesses. True copy of letter dated 14.02.2024 and report dated 17.02.2204 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure PA No.2 to this personal affidavit.
8. That it is most respectfully submitted here that restoration application has been listed for hearing on 20.20.2024 and after considering the grounds which are taken in restoration application, the restoration application has been rejected by order dated 20.02.2024.
9. That it is most respectfully submitted here that petitioner has filed again a restoration application dated 13.02.2024 for recalling the order dated 20.02.2024 which was passed on restoration application however this restoration application has again been dismissed by the order dated 01.06.2024"
6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents submits that the impugned orders were passed after giving due information regarding the preponment of date for the disposal of the restoration application. Since petitioner was not found in village, therefore having no other option the order dated 20.02.2024 was passed. The petitioner again filed restoration application for recalling the order dated 20.02.2024 which was again decided by order dated 01.06.2024 after giving information to the petitioner.
7. Taking into consideration the facts as narrated in the writ petition and also the averments made in the personal affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 passed on the restoration application filed by the petitioner in Revision No.28/2010, under Section 219 of U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act, (Amit Kumar versus Jay Ram and others) are ex-parte order having being passed without due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as such the same are liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.06.2024 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition which passed on restoration application dated 13.03.2024 and order dated 20.02.2024 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, passed on restoration application dated 19.05.2023, by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly in Revision No.28/2010, (Amit Kumar versus Jay Ram and others) filed under Section 219 of U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act, are hereby set aside.
9. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly (respondent no.2) is directed to consider afresh the restoration application dated 19.05.2023 and decide the same on its merit, strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
10. It is provide that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent no.2 on 05.05.2025 to press the aforesaid restoration application dated 19.05.2023 and the respondent no.2 shall take necessary steps to ensure the due presence of the concerned parties in accordance with law, before passing the final order on the aforesaid restoration application on merit of the same.
11. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 3.4.2025 I.A.Siddiqui