Allahabad High Court
Shambhu Nath Shukla vs Addl. Commissioner Admin. ... on 4 November, 2022
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000411 of 2005
Petitioner :- Shambhu Nath Shukla
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Admin. Faizabad And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- I.M. Pandey,Daya Shanker Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.A. Siddiqui,S.K.Dixit,Virendra Misra
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Yusuf Safi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri M.A.Siddiqui, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 3 to 5.
2. Under challenge in this petition is order dated 20-10-2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner(Administration)Faizabad Division, Faizabad whereby the revision bearing no. 1535 of 2003, under section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, has been allowed ex-parte.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is limited to the extent that he had initiated the proceedings under section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act,1901 for rectification of the map. The said proceedings came to be allowed in favour of the petitioner by means of order dated 21-06-2003. It is also the case of the petitioner that immediately thereafter, the petitioner had filed a caveat before the revisional authority. The revisional authority ignoring the caveat which was filed, not only entertained the revision preferred by the private respondents no. 3 to 5, but, also granted an ex-parte stay of the order passed by the court below dated 21-06-2003.
4. It is also submitted that even thereafter no notice was issued to the petitioner and the revision came to be finally allowed on 20-10-2004. The challenge to the impugned order passed by the revisional court is solely on the ground that order is not only an exparte but also is against the principles of natural justice as despite having filed a caveat, no notice was issued either on application for interim relief or on the revision itself which precluded the petitioner from contesting the proceedings and order being against the petitioner behind his back is liable to set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 3 to 5 while drawing the attention of the court to the Short Counter Affidavit filed submits that in para no. 19 of the writ petition, it has been stated by the petitioner that he did not have any adequate or alternative remedy against the order passed by the revisional court and has preferred the instant petition whereas the petitioner has already filed an application for recall on 23-12-2004 and thus, the averments made in paragraph no. 19 are contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner and accordingly, the present petition is not maintainable.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. From perusal of material on record, it indicates that the petitioner has clearly in para nos. 16 to 19 of the petition stated that after judgment and order dated 21-06-2003, the petitioner has lodged a caveat before the Additional Commissioner(Administration)Faizabad Division, Faizbad on 28-06-2003. It has also been stated that despite the caveat. no notice was issued or served on the petitioner or his counsel. The Additional Commissioner(Administration)Faizabad Division passed an ex-parte ad interim order dated 09-07-2003 staying the operation of the order dated 21-06-2003.
8. It has also been clearly stated that neither any notice was issued to the petitioner by the revisional court nor his counsel and and they had no notice of hearing of the revision which was filed by the respondent no. 3. Significantly this court on 27-01-2005 had required the petitioner to file a Supplementary Affidavit to state clearly as to whether any notice at the subsequent point of time was issued by the revisional court or not and in terms whereof the Supplementary Affidavit was filed which was taken note of by this court in its order dated 31-01-2005 and only thereafter the petition was admitted and further proceedings of the case for correction were stayed. The record would indicate that the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph nos. 16 to 19 of the petition have not been controverted by the private respondent no. 3 to 5 though they have filed a Short Counter Affidavit. Accordingly, even during the course of the arguments nothing has been pointed out in so far as the averments in the aforesaid pagragrphs are concerned.
9. In view of the aforesaid, it can be clearly be seen that the order passed by the Revisional Court is contrary to the settled principles inmuch as in adherence to the principles of natural justice is one of the core requirements upon which the judicial system is based.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order passed by the revisional court dated 20-10-2004 cannot be sustained and for the aforesaid reason alone the order passed by the Additional Commissioner(Administration)Faizabad Division, Faizabad shall stand set aside. The revision shall stand restored to its original number before the said authority.
11. The parties shall appear before the revisional court on 05-12-2022, who after affording opportunity hearing to the parties concerned, but, without granting any unnecessary adjournment, shall endevaour to decide the revision afresh strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period three months from the date the parties appear before the court concerned.
12. With the aforesaid, present petition is allowed and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.11.2022
AKS
