Allahabad High Court
Sujeet Kumar vs Board Of Revenue Lko. Thru. Its ... on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 482 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sujeet Kumar
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Lko. Thru. Its Chairman And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.Z. Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court be kept on record.
Heard Sri A.Z.Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing cousnel appearing for the State-respondents.
Instant petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:-
(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Opposite Party No. 1, as is contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.
(ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Appellate Court to remit bakc the matter to the Court of the Tehsildar for Mutation in the light of the judgment and order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue to comply the order first by affording opportunity to the petitioner while deciding the mutation proceeding.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter pertains to mutation proceeding arising out of Case No. 1815 which order, passed on mutation proceedings dated 06.10.2017, has been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit filed today, a copy of which is annexure SA 1 to the said affidavit.
The case set forth by the petitioner is that mutation proceedings were initiated by the private respondents before the competent authority. An application dated 24.07.2017, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the petition was filed by the petitioner praying for bringing on record certain evidence. Through order dated 22.09.2017, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the petition, the Court rejected the application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision bearing Revision No. 1652 of 2017/ Hardoi and the revisional Court vide order dated 17.11.2017, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the petition set aside the order dated 22.09.2017 and directed the Court competent to proceed with the matter after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
It transpires that even before the order dated 17.11.2017 was passed by the revisional Court, the case pertaining to the original mutation proceedings already stood decided vide order dated 06.10.2017, a copy of which is annexure SA 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal which according to him is still pending for consideration before the Appellate Court. It is contended that in the meanwhile, the private respondents filed an application for recall of the order dated 17.11.2017 before the revisional court. The revisional Court considering that the original mutation proceedings already stood decided by the competent Court vide order dated 06.10.2017 i.e even prior to the revisional Court passing the order dated 17.11.2017 was of the view that order dated 17.11.2017 is totally meaningless and as such, has passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition whereby after observing the aforesaid, the recall application has been disposed of. Being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed.
The grounds for challenge to the said order are (a) that the revisional Court has passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 without issuing any notice to the petitioner and (b) as the application for recall was filed belatedly, no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was considered and consequently, the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 could not have validly been passed by the revisional Court. No other ground has been urged.
From the facts as have emerged from the records, it is apparent that the application filed by the petitioner in the original mutation proceedings for filing evidence was rejected by the original mutation Court vide order dated 22.09.2017. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision which has been allowed vide order dated 17.11.2017 whereby the order dated 22.09.2017 had been set aside. Even before the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the revisional Court could see the light of the day, the mutation proceedings stood decided vide order dated 06.10.2017. Admittedly, the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the said order which is pending for consideration. In the meanwhile considering that the order of the revisional Court dated 17.11.2017 was totally meaningless in the eyes of law inasmuch as the original proceedings for mutation stood were decided more than a month prior to the revisional Court passing the order dated 17.11.2017, upon an application for recall filed by the private respondents, the revisional Court without issuing any notice being of the view that its order dated 17.11.2017 was totally meaningless in the eyes of law, as the original mutation proceedings, for which the order dated 17.11.2017 was meant, have already been finalized vide order dated 06.10.2017 observing the same, the recall application has been disposed of.
The grounds taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and that even the delay in filing the application for recall may not detain the Court inasmuch as admittedly once the mutation case already stood decided vide order dated 06.10.2017, as such, the order of the revisional Court dated 17.11.2017 which set aside the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the original mutation Court becomes totally meaningless in the eyes of law as the proceedings already stood culminated even prior to the said date. It was in the fitness of things that the petitioner should himself have pointed out this fact to the revisional Court in the revision which had been filed by him that the original proceedings stood concluded vide order dated 06.10.2017 but the said fact was concealed by the petitioner before the revisional Court. Thus, it is apparent that apart from the observations made by the revisional Court it is apparent that there has been patent concealment on the part of the petitioner on this aspect which this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot ignore.
Considering the aforesaid, the Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the revisional Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022
Pachhere/-
