Allahabad High Court
Devta Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt Of ... on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6773 of 2022
Petitioner :- Devta Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt Of Revenue Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pathak,Vijay Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.5.
Under challenge is the order dated 15.12.2010 whereby in proceedings under Section 202 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act in respect of the property in question, the name of the petitioner was expunged and the land was directed to be recorded in the record as that of public utility land. The said order was challenged in revision and the revision has also been dismissed on 23.08.2022.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question since prior to the Abolition of Zamindari. The petitioner had instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act which came to be decree on 26.03.1997. Since none of the parties assailed the said decree, accordingly it has attained finality.
It has further been pointed out that the respondent-State had also instituted proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, however, as soon as the petitioner filed his objection and brought the said document including decree dated 26.03.1997 to the notice of the authorities. The said proceedings were dropped.
It has been urged that subsequently proceedings were initiated under Section 202 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. However without issuing notice or calling upon the petitioner to respond on ex parte order dated 15.12.2010 was passed. The petitioner assailed the same before the revisional court where the order passed under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was brought to the notice of the revisional court. However, the same did not even find mention in the reasoning while recording the finding and dismissing the revision.
Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State as well as Shri Pankaj Gupta for the respondent no.5 have raised a submission that the order under Section 229-B which is relied upon by the petitioner is not a valid order; inasmuch as no rights of the petitioner could get perfected in respect of the land which is a public utility land. It has further been urged that in absence of any such material to authenticate the order, the petitioner cannot be granted any benefit. It is also pointed out that the order which is relied by the petitioner raises doubt.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that though in the order impugned there is a mention regarding the judgment passed in favour of the petitioner under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. However, the same has not been considered. Moreover, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Sadar), Gonda was ex parte. Even the revisional court has not considered the effect of the judgment under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The petitioner did not lead any evidence as no notice was issued. Both the counsel for the State as well as Gaon Sabha submits that since the said effect of the judgment has not been considered and proper opportunity of hearing has not been given. Accordingly, instead of keeping the matter pending, the matter may be remanded for afresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering the material available on record.
In view of the aforesaid, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.08.2022 and 15.12.2010 are set aside. The proceedings shall stand restored on the board of the respondent no.3. The parties to appear before the respondent no.3 on 19th of December, 2022. The respondent no.3 after affording opportunity to the petitioner to file objection, evidence in support of their case including considering the material on record as well as the documents that may be pressed by the respective parties, shall decide the proceedings afresh keeping all pleas open and after affording full opportunity of hearing but without granting any unnecessary adjournments preferably within a period of four months from the date the parties appear before the respondent no.3.
It is made clear that the court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent no.3 shall decide it strictly in accordance with law.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.12.2022
ank
