Allahabad High Court
Udai Raj & Others vs Addl. Commissioner (Admin) ... on 18 February, 2021
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4730 of 2021
Petitioner :- Udai Raj & Others
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Admin) Ayodhya & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manju Nagaur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 11.1.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya as also the orders dated 23.8.2003 and 22.1.1999 passed by the Tehsildar, Sadar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Ajay Kumar Gupta for the caveator Dinesh Kumar Verma, who is also arrayed as respondent no.4 in this petition.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that one Smt. Sarju Devi was the recorded tenure holder of certain land situated in village Rampur Sandasi, Pargana Haveli Awadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya along with the petitioners. She had inherited the property from her late husband Guru Dayal. She died on 23.8.1998 leaving behind her two daughters at her native village Rampur Sandasi. The father of respondent nos.3 and 4 was the Ex-Pradhan and prepared forged notarized Will allegedly executed on 12.8.1998 and on the basis thereof, got the names of respondent nos.3 and 4 mutated in the revenue records. Respondent nos.3 and 4 are total strangers and do not belong to the family. The order of mutation having been passed without following the procedure of law and without serving notice upon the petitioners on 22.1.1999, the petitioners having derived knowledge of such order, filed an application for recall under Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which application was rejected by respondent no.2 by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 201. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 23.8.2003 filed a revision, which has also been rejected. Hence this petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has read out Annexure-2, which is a copy of the order of Additional Tehsildar dated 23.8.2003 which has clearly mentioned that notice of the mutation application was not served upon the petitioners, but says that such circumstance is not covered by Section 201 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.
5. Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is being quoted hereinbelow:
"201. No appeal from orders passed ex parte or by default.-No appeal shall lie from an order passed under Section 200 ex parte or by default.
Re-hearing on proof of good cause for non-appearance.-But in all such cases, if the party against whom judgment has been given appears either in person or by agent (if a plaintiff, within fifteen days from the date of such order, and if a defendant, within fifteen days after such order has been communicated to him, or after any process for enforcing the judgment has been executed or at any earlier period), and shows good cause for his non-appearance, and satisfies the officer making the order that there has been a failure of justice, such officer may, upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as he thinks proper, revive the case and alter or rescind the order according to the justice of the case.
Order not to be altered without summons to adverse party.-Provided that no such order shall be reversed or altered without previously summoning the party in whose favour judgment has been given to appear and be heard in support of it."
6. It is apparent from a perusal of the language of Section 201 that if a party against whom judgment has been given approaches the Court concerned and shows good cause for his non appearance, and satisfies the officer making the order that there has been failure of justice, such officer may, upon such terms as he thinks proper, revive the case and alter or rescind the order according to the justice of the case, but before doing so, he will summon the party in whose favour the judgment has been given to appear and hear such party also.
7. This Court finds that there was sufficient cause for the defendants not to appear as notice was not served upon them at all as has come out in the order impugned of the Additional Commissioner, therefore, the order dated 23.8.2003 is set aside as also the order dated 22.1.1999 by which, mutation has been ordered in favour of respondent nos.3 and 4 by the Additional Commissioner. Consequently, the order dated 11.1.2021 passed in Case no.1617/2002-03 in Revision is also set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents had initially raised an objection regarding maintainability of this petition, as according to him, the order was passed in mutation proceedings and this Court ordinarily does not interfere in such matters. However, this Court finds that the orders passed by the Additional Tehsildar and the Additional Commissioner are against the provisions of the Statute and therefore, this Court has found it appropriate to quash the same.
9. The writ petition stands allowed.
10. Let mutation proceedings be heard afresh on the application moved by respondent nos.3 and 4. Since the petitioners have due knowledge of such mutation application now, they shall appear before the Court of respondent no.2 on 8.3.2021 and file their objections. The contesting respondents shall also appear on 8.3.2021. The respondents no.3 and 4 may file reply to such objections within two week thereafter. The mutation proceedings be decided by respondent no.2 within a period of three months from such submission of reply by respondent nos.3 and 4.
Order Date :- 18.2.2021
Sachin
