Allahabad High Court
Jokhu Singh vs State Of U.P. And 13 Others on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 348 of 2023
Petitioner :- Jokhu Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Sharma,Atul Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai,Gauri Shanker Mishra,Rahul Mishra
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel who has filed a caveat application/vakalatnama on behalf of respondents No. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13. Learned Standing Counsel represents the respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.5, Gaon Sabha.
This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 27.12.2022 passed by respondent no.2 in Case No. REV/3703/2022 (Computerized Case No. AL20220203003703) (Shivpujan and another vs. Jukhu Singh and others) under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to implement the order dated 27-12-2022 passed by the respondent no.2"
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner, namely, Maidan Singh, had filed an application under Section 32/38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which came to be allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No.4, by means of an order dated 15.2.2020. A set of respondents filed a revision before the Commissioner which was dismissed in default. Another set of respondents filed an appeal which is stated to be pending and, the respondents No. 6 & 7 filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Prayagraj in which revision the impugned order has been passed. The contention is that by the impugned order, without issuing any notice whatsoever to the petitioner despite the petitioner being made a party in the revision, the impugned order has been passed.
The alleged fact of non-issuance of notice to the petitioner, has not been disputed by Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.
A perusal of the impugned order, passed by the Board of Revenue, reveals that it does not record the issuance of notice to any of the respondents arrayed in the revision. Paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of the order impugned reveal that no computerized record of the order dated 15.2.2020 was found on the portal and it did not bear a barcode and, therefore, it was set aside. It is further recorded that the original applicant, namely, Maidan Singh, had died on 6.2.2020 i.e. prior to the date of the order dated 15.2.2020, passed by the respondent No.4. Accordingly, the revision was allowed but without affording any opportunity of representation to the petitioner.
In view of the above, without entering into the merits of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is allowed and the order impugned of the Board of Revenue dated 27.12.2022 is hereby quashed with a direction to the Board of Revenue to take a decision afresh on the revision after affording opportunity to the petitioner and other respondents arrayed in the revision to file their objections and affording an opportunity of hearing to them.
However, since the petitioner No.1 is present through his counsel in the Court today, no separate notice is required to be issued to him by the Board of Revenue.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to file a certified copy of the order passed today before the Board of Revenue within next week.
The Board of Revenue, it is expected, shall fix a date in the matter and issue notice to the other parties and, thereafter, proceed for disposal of the matter preferably within a period of three months thence.
Order Date :- 9.2.2023
Vandana
(Jayant Banerji,J.)
