Allahabad High Court
Raghvendra Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 7 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2666
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 13 of 2025
Petitioner :- Raghvendra Singh And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh,Ram Babu Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjai Singh,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Y.P. Singh, holding the brief of Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and Sri Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Addl.C.S.C. for the state-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was initiated and the same was decided by the Tehsildar vide order dated 31.7.2024, directing to record the name of the petitioner in the place of original tenure holder Ramkrit. Against the order dated 31.7.2024, passed by the Tehsildar, respondent no.6 filed a direct revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the respondent no.2/Board of Revenue which has been registered as Case No. REV/3223/2024/Ghazipur (Computerized Case No.AL20241429003223) wherein the petitioners were impleaded as opposite parties but the Board of Revenue, within 14 days of the filing the aforesaid revision, has allowed the revision, without issuing notice to the petitioners/opposite party, setting aside the order dated 31.7.2024 and remanded the matter back before the Tehsildar to decide the mutation case afresh on merit. Respondent No.6 filed a transfer application before Collector to transfer the mutation case to any other court accordingly Collector rejected the transfer application vide order dated 7.11.2024. Respondent No.6 challenged the order dated 7.11.2024 before board of revenue which is pending and interim order dated 27.11.2024 has been passed restraining the Tehsildar from passing any final order in mutation case. Hence the instant writ petition for the following relief:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned judgments and orders dated 14.8.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P., Prayagraj in Revision No.3223/2024/Ghazipur and dated 27.11.2024 passed in Revision No.4801/2024/Ghazipur (Saraswati vs. State of U.P. and Others) (Copies of impugned judgments and orders are filed as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 to this petition."
3. Counsel for the petitioners states that the mutation case, filed in respect to the property of the tenure holder Ramkrit, was contested before the Tehsildar and the Tehsildar after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, has decided the mutation case for recording the name of the petitioners over the plot in question. He submitted that against the order passed by the Tehsildar, remedy of appeal is provided under the Act/Code but without availing the remedy of appeal, revision was directly filed which has been illegally entertained and allowed in ex parte manner under the impugned order. He submitted that the revisional court cannot allow the revision without issuing notice to the opposite parties, as such, the impugned revisional order is liable to be set aside and the order of the Tehsildar be maintained for recording the name of the petitioners over the plot in question. He further submitted that the contesting respondent no.6 has applied for transfer of the proceeding before the Tehsildar which has been rejected by the Tehsildar, thereafter, respondent no. 6 has filed revision before the Board of Revenue which is pending.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 submitted that the Board of Revenue has rightly exercised the revisional jurisdiction vide order dated 14.8.2024 as the Tehsildar has passed the mutation order against a dead person. He submitted that under the impugned revisional order dated 14.8.2024, the matter has been remanded back before the Tehsildar where both the parties will get the opportunity to contest the proceeding, as such, no interference is required in the matter. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the impugned revisional order, proceeding is pending before the Tehsildar, as such, no interference is required against the impugned revisional order passed on 14.8.2024.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was decided by the Tehsildar after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties vide order dated 31.7.2024. There is also no dispute about the fact that respondent no.6 has filed a direct revision against the mutation order dated 31.7.2024 before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed without issuing notice to the petitioners and remanding the matter back before the Tehsildar for fresh decision of mutation case.
7. The law is well settled that order impugned in the proceeding, cannot be set aside without notice and opportunity of hearing to the opposite party in the proceeding.
8. In the instant matter, the revision filed by respondent no.6 has been allowed, setting aside the impugned order, without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who were impleaded as opposite party in the revision.
9. In view of the fact that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Board of Revenue while deciding the revision as well as setting aside the order of the Tehsildar dated 31.7.2024 as such, the impugned revisional order dated 14.8.2024 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby set aside.
10. So far as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that direct revision is not maintainable against the order of Tehsildar is concerned, petitioners can raise the plea of maintainability of revision before the revisional court which shall be considered by the revisional court in accordance with law.
11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remanded back before respondent no.2/Board of Revenue, U.P., at Prayagraj to register the revision filed by respondent no.6 on its original number and decide the same considering the objection of the petitioner regarding maintainability of the revision, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in accordance with law. The subsequent proceeding to transfer the mutation case initiated at the instance of respondent No-6 has become infructotus as the revisional order 14.8.2024 passed by board of revenue has been setaside by this Court accordingly petitioners are directed to file certified copy of this order before Court concerned where the proceeding relating to transfer is pending who shall pass the necessary orders accordingly.
Order Date :- 7.1.2025
C.Prakash
