Vimala Devi vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 7254 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vimala Devi vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 26 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89625
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41268 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Vimala Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Singh,J.P. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil- Chayal, District- Kaushambi in Case No.4335 of 2024 (Vimla Devi versus Shakuntla Devi and others) under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to file response to the objection that was received by the petitioner on 21.11.2024. He contends that the petitioner moved an application on 20.11.2024 seeking time to file response to the aforesaid objection. Despite the fact that the said application was entertained by the concerned Naib Tehsildar on 20.11.2024 by passing an order 'KOF' on the same but on the very next day i.e. 21.11.2024, the final order was passed.

4. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a copy of the aforesaid application dated 20.11.2024 as annexure no.8 to the writ petition, whereby he sought time. On the left margin of the said application, there is a signature with the date '19.11.2024' under the order of 'KOF'. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said signature of the concerned Naib Tehsildar is ante dated. He submitted that there is no occasion to pass order on 19.11.2024 on an application which was admittedly filed on 20.11.2024.

5. This Court vide order dated 07.05.2024 passed the following order:

"1. Heard Shri Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. This Court vide order dated 21.04.2025 directed the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents to seek instructions in the matter as to whether application said to have been filed on 20.11.2024 was considered by the learned Court below and what order was passed on the same.

3. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that the instructions received from the office of the Tehsildar, Tehsil-Chayal, District-Kaushambi (respondent No.2) jointly signed by Nayab Tehsildar, Sarai Ankil, Kaushambi and Tehsildar, Tehsil-Chayal, District-Kaushambi is silent on the specific query made by this Court. Further, the Court has noticed that the copy of the application as contained in Annexure No. 8 of the writ petition bears the date '20.11.2024' while on the margin of the said application, the order to keep on file 'Kof' is dated '19.11.2024'.

4. It is very strange that when the said application was filed on 20.11.2024, then how the same can be ordered to be kept on file on 19.11.2024.

5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for some time to verify the same from the original records.

6. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, this Court directs the Tehsildar, Tehsil-Chayal, District-Kaushambi (respondent No.2) along with Nayab Tehsildar, Sarai Ankil, Kaushambi to appear before this Court on 26.05.2025 along with complete record to clarify the aforesaid situation."

6. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Sri Pushpendra Gautam, Tehsildar, Tehsil- Chayal, District- Kaushambi and Sri Kapil Mishra, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil- Chayal, District- Kaushambi, are present before the Court today and have filed separate applications for exemption from personal appearance duly supported by affidavits wherein they have rendered the following explanation:

"9. That however, after the reserving of the judgment on 20.11.2024 and after the counsel for the Opposite Parties left the Court room an application dated 20.11.2024 was tendered by the counsel for the petitioner at the time of rising of the Court without even serving the copy of the said application on the counsel for the opposite parties and as such the noting 'KOF' was made on the said application. However, due to inadvertence the date 19.11.2024 was mentioned by the deponent although there was no occasion for mentioning the said date below the order of 'KOF' especially when in the application dated 20.11.2024 itself it was mentioned that the order has been reserved. Since the matter had already been heard finally and order had already been reserved no order on the application was passed."

7. However, the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil- Chayal, District- Kaushambi, present before the Court, renders unconditional apology for the ignorance committed in putting the incorrect date of order as '19.11.2024' instead of '20.11.2024'.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record available before this Court.

9. It is apparent that once the application filed by the petitioner for grant of time to file response to the objections dated 27.09.2024 was entertained and admittedly not rejected by the concerned Naib Tehsildar, the passing of final order on the very next day by the same authority is not at all justified as the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to file appropriate reply to the contents/averments made in the said objection.

10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil- Chayal, District- Kaushambi in Case No.4335/2024 (Vimla Devi versus Shakuntla Devi and others) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, being against the principles of natural justice.

11. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent nos.3 to 7 is dispensed with.

12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as discussed herein above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil- Chayal, District- Kaushambi in Case No.4335/2024 (Vimla Devi versus Shakuntla Devi and others), is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

13. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

14. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case.

15. However, it is directed that the Tehsildar, Tehsil- Chayal, District- Kaushambi (respondent no.2) shall conclude the proceedings of the Case No.4335/2024 (Vimla Devi versus Shakuntla Devi and others), under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 afresh by passing a reasoned order after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and after taking into consideration the pleadings and other documentary evidences available on record, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from today, in accordance with the Sub Rule 7 of Rule 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

Order Date :- 26.5.2025

Abhishek Gupta