Allahabad High Court
Ram Vishal vs State Of U.P. And 13 Others on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159899
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19223 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ram Vishal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nisheeth Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 4 and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to be issued in favour of the respondent no.3 to restore the Khasra No.338 which is a Pond in terms of the judgment of Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi and others after deciding the Case No.T20140203051/1008, under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.
3. On 07.07.2023, this Court has passed the following order:-
"(1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondents.
(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner informed that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2017 in Writ C no. 10580 of 2015 (Ram Murat Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others) has passed the following order:
"1. Heard Sri I.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. Assailing the orders dated 05.12.2014, 07.01.2015 and 23.01.2015 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karchana, Allahabad, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that long standing revenue entry given to petitioner could not have been deleted or corrected by Revenue authorities without giving any show cause notice or opportunity to petitioner, therefore the impugned order is in utter violation of principles of natural justice as well as procedure laid down under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1901"). He has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Noor Mohd. and others Vs Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and others, 2016 (132) RD 126, wherein, para 34, this Court has observed as under:-
"Even assuming for the sake of arguments that it was for the correction of records under sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, then also the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was under a legal obligation to issue notices to the petitioners whose names were sought to be scored out. The same having not been done, the inference drawn by the learned Single Judge or about the assumption of jurisdiction by the Sub Divisional Magistrate also does not appear to be correct."
3. When confronted, learned Standing Counsel, could not dispute that impugned order has been passed after obtaining report from concerned Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar and no notice was issued to petitioner before passing the order, impugned in this writ petition. For this reason alone, since impugned order was passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice without issuing notice to petitioner, in my view, it cannot be sustained.
4. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 05.12.2014, 07.01.2015 and 23.01.2015 are hereby set aside. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karchana, Allahabad, now shall pass fresh order after giving show cause notice to petitioner, in accordance with law, within two months."
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner further informed that the aforesaid order has not been complied with till today.
(4) In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, respondent no. 3 (Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Karchhana, District-Prayagraj) is hereby directed to appear in person on 10.07.2023 at 2 p.m with proper explanation that under which circumstances the order and direction passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2017 in Writ C no. 10580 of 2015 has not been complied with till today.
(5) Put up this matter on 10.07.2023 as fresh"
4. On 19.07.2023, this Court has passed the following order:-
"Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State respondents.
In pursuance to the earlier direction, Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Karchhana, District Prayagraj) is personally present before the Court.
With regard to compliance of the order dated 20.01.2017 passed in Writ C no. 10580 of 2015 (Ram Murat Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others) wherein the specific direction was issued by the co-ordinate Bench to decide the matter as fresh within two months.
Officer concerned informed that he has recently joined as Sub-Divisional Officer, Karchhana, District Prayagraj. For strict compliance of the order dated 20.01.2017 he has already taken up the matter by way of giving proper opportunity to all the concerned and affected parties and the matter is going to be listed on 20.07.2023.
On the statement made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, instant matter is being passed over for 10 days. By that time the order and direction passed vide order dated 20.01.2017 be complied with in true letter and spirit.
Put up this case as fresh on 08.08.2023 at 2 p.m, by that time affidavit of compliance may be preferred by respondent no. 3. However, it is made clear that today the personal appearance is dispensed with but in case of failure of the compliance of the order and direction, Sub-Divisional Officer, Karchhana, District Prayagraj shall remain present before the Court on the next date. "
5. Today when the matter has been taken up, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel preferred personal affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.3 which is taken on record. It is apparent from the personal affidavit that after issuing notices to the concerned parties and after giving proper opportunity of hearing, vide order dated 07.08.2023, the respondent no.3 decided the aforesaid case as mentioned in the prayer and complied with the order dated 20.01.2017 in Writ C no. 10580 of 2015 (Ram Murat Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others). The order dated 07.08.2023 has been appended along with personal affidavit.
6. The grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed in pursuance to the prayer as made in the instant petition and as such, there is hardly any cause of action arises in favour of the petitioner to pursue the instant petition. However, it is made clear that the order and direction passed by the respondent no.3 shall be complied with in true letter and spirit by way of adopting the legal recourse available as per law.
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.8.2023
Vivek Kr.
