Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2733
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava - Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Srivastava and Ors. - Respondent
Writ - C No. - 23214 of 2014
Decided On : 29-04-2014
For the Petitioner:- Ch. N.A. Khan
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Aditya,Manoj Kumar Yadav
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to hear arguments on merit before making a decision, and the authority's power to remand a matter for a fresh decision.
Headnote:
Land Revenue Act - Mutation Application - Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - The court discussed the maintainability of the second mutation application filed by the petitioner and the arguments on merit. The Commissioner found that the arguments were not heard on merit and remanded the matter to Tehsildar for deciding the maintainability of the second application and, if maintainable, to decide the application afresh on merit.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed against the order of the Commissioner dated 10.3.2014, which was passed in the revision arising out of proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The dispute related to mutation of names over land recorded in the name of Mata Prasad, inheritance, and the maintainability of the second mutation application filed by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Commissioner found that the arguments were not heard on merit and remanded the matter to Tehsildar for deciding the maintainability of the second application and, if maintainable, to decide the application afresh on merit.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the second mutation application, inheritance dispute, and the decision made without hearing arguments on merit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the arguments were not heard on merit and remanded the matter to Tehsildar for a fresh decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the order of the Commissioner was virtually an order of remand, allowing the petitioner to raise grievances before Tehsildar.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
Heard Sri N.A. Khan for the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar Aditya for the contesting respondents.
2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Commissioner dated 10.3.2014 passed in the revision arising out of proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act").
3. Rajesh Kumar, petitioner, and the respondents (second set) filed an application under Section 34 of the Act for mutation of their names over the land recorded in the name of Mata Prasad. It has been stated in the application that Mata Prasad left behind his only son Kailash and after the death of Kailash the petitioner, his brothers and their mother inherited the property in dispute. It is alleged that when the contesting respondents put appearance in the application and filed objection, then the application was got dismissed as not pressed by order dated 28.4.2011. Thereafter, behind the back of the contesting respondents another application under Section 34 of the Act was filed which was allowed ex parte by order dated 29.4.2011. On coming to know about the said order, the contesting respondents filed an application for recall of the order, which was dismissed by the order dated 17.8.2011. The contesting respondents challenged the aforesaid order in revision. The revision was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by order dated 12.4.2012 allowed the revision and set aside the orders dated 29.4.2011 and 17.8.2011 and remanded the matter to Tehsildar for deciding the mutation application afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence. The petitioner challenged the order dated 12.4.2012 in revision before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by order dated 26.9.2012. Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ B No. 5808 of 2012, which was also dismissed by this Court by order dated 6.11.2012. After dismissal of the writ petition the matter was taken up by Tehsildar and it is alleged that the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was completed on 14.3.2013. Thereafter 24.3.2013 was the date fixed for evidence of the contesting respondents. On 24.3.2013 the case was adjourned and a general date has been fixed on 11.4.2013. On 11.4.2013 the petitioner engaged another counsel who took adjournment and the case was adjourned fixing 22.4.2013. On by 22.4.2013 the contesting respondents filed objection and also filed an application raising objection against maintainability of the second application under Section 34 of the Act. The case was, therefore, adjourned and 15.5.2013 was fixed and thereafter 23.5.2013 was fixed in the case and on that date the case was adjourned and 5.6.2013 was fixed on which date the argument on maintainability of the second application filed by the petitioner was heard. Thereafter 24.6.2013 was fixed for order but on 24.6.2013 a general date was fixed on 18.7.2013. On 18.7.2013 the case was adjourned and 25.7.2013 was fixed. And thereafter the case was adjourned for 25.7.2013 and 8.8.2013 was fixed. On 8.8.2013 the case was adjourned and 14.8.2013 was fixed. On 14.8.2013, 23.8.2013 was fixed. On 9.9.2013 arguments were heard on the maintainability of the second application and thereafter 28.9.2013 was fixed on which date the case was finally decided on merit.
4. The contesting respondents filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 7/15 of 2013) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by the Commissioner, who by the impugned order dated 10.3.2014 held that from the order sheet it was clear that the arguments were heard only in respect of the maintainability of the second mutation application filed by the petitioner, however, the case was decided on merit without hearing any arguments on merit in the case. On this finding the matter has been remanded to Tehsildar for deciding the maintainability of second application. In any case, it is found that application filed by the petitioner is maintainable, then after giving opportunity to
