Allahabad High Court
Ram Kailash vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 12 April, 2023
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2891 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ram Kailash
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yash Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Yash Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Caveator/ opposite party No.4.
In view of the proposed order, the notices to opposite party Nos. 5 to 10 are hereby dispensed with.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya rejecting the Revision No.1905/1/2015 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) and also the orders dated 23.11.2013 and 20.02.2015 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramsanehighat, District-Barabanki in Case No.67 (13-14) filed under Section 41 of Land Revenue Act (Annexure Nos.2 & 3 to the writ petition), after summoning the original records.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to continue to possess, access, use and enjoy the land in Gata No.1369 measuring 0.1370 hectare, situated in the Village-Sanauli, Pargana-Suryapur, Tehsil-Ramsanehighat, District-Barabanki."
The main premise to assail the impugned order dated 10.02.2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya, is that the aforesaid authority who is the Revisional Authority has rejected the revision of the petitioner whereby the orders dated 20.02.2015 and 23.11.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramsanehighat, District-Barabanki were assailed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the memo of revision wherein vide para-2 thereof it has been categorically indicated that the learned court below has passed the order dated 23.11.2013 without hearing the petitioner as the petitioner was not made party in that case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.4 of the writ petition, which is a copy of the Khatauni for the Fasli Year 1419 to 1424, wherein the name of the petitioner has been recorded. Besides, Annexure No.5 of the writ petition is the Family Register of the year 2012 wherein the father of the petitioner, namely, Sri Jagannath has been indicated as dead and the name of the petitioner was very well included in such Family Register.
Therefore, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time when the impugned order dated 23.11.2013 was passed directing for demarcation of the boundaries, the petitioner was affected person and despite the ground taken in the revision the Revisional Authority has not considered that aspect properly. The petitioner has also taken another ground in the revision that the impugned order dated 23.11.2013 was passed during the proceedings of Rashtriya Lok Adalat and no order from Lok Adalat can be passed ex-parte inasmuch as such orders should pass on the basis of agreement/ compromise entered into between the parties. Therefore in that score, the impugned order dated 23.11.2013 was patently illegal and unwarranted. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the Revisional Court has not considered this ground also. However, the Revisional Court has observed that on the basis of the impugned order dated 23.11.2013 the present petitioner has not suffered any loss. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 23.11.2013 and 20.02.2015, whereby the recall application of the petitioner was rejected, are said to be the appropriate orders.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that on the basis of facts and circumstances of the issue in question, the findings of the Revisional Authority recorded vide order dated 10.02.2023 are perverse.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties have however tried to defend the revisional order dated 10.02.2023 but they could not explain the apparent error of the order dated 10.02.2023 wherein the specific finding has not been returned to the effect that the impugned order dated 23.11.2013 has been passed without hearing the petitioner and without verifying the fact as to whether the affected party has been impleaded in the array of parties or not.
Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material available on record as well as the impugned order dated 10.02.2023, I find that the Revisional Authority has erred in not returning the specific finding on the point that the petitioner was not party in a case wherein the order dated 23.11.2013 has been passed and by means of order dated 23.11.2013 the petitioner was affecting. Further, while taking specific ground the restoration application was filed by the petitioner but the same authority rejected the restoration application of the petitioner on 20.02.2015 without considering the reasonable submission of the petitioner. In a same manner, the Revisional Authority has passed the order dated 10.02.2023 without adverting the specific submission so taken by the petitioner in the revision and without verifying the fact that the petitioner was not party before the learned court below but the order has been passed against him. Even the ground of the petitioner that no order can be passed during the proceedings of Rashtriya Lok Adalat ex-parte or without hearing the affected party, therefore in that score, I find that the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya is hereby set aside/ quashed. However, the matter is remanded back to the Revisional Authority to pass a fresh order considering the contents of the revision being filed by the petitioner and all the pleas and grounds which have been taken by him, strictly in accordance with law, by hearing the other affected parties with expedition preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The parties shall co-operate in the proceedings before the Revisional Authority and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.
Till passing of a fresh order in terms of the order of this Court, the status-quo as on today in respect of the property in question, shall be maintained by the parties.
The instant writ petition is, therefore, partly allowed.
Order Date :- 12.4.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Suresh/
