Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
DINESH PATHAK, J.
Fakira and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) Nos. 196, 420, 880, 984, 998, 1000, 1734, 1790, 1800, 1801, 1825, 1877, 2093, 2094, 2181, 2394 of 2021, 310, 1071, 1081, 1233 of 2022
Decided On : 18-08-2022
Opportunity of Hearing - Violation of Natural Justice - UP Consolidation of Holdings Act - Section 132 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Section 131-A of UPZA and LR Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged orders passed ex-parte, alleging violation of natural justice and fair play, resulting in deprivation of their rights over the land. The court proceeded to decide the writ petition at the admission stage with the consent of the parties, emphasizing the need for post-order opportunity of hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were passed without affording the recorded tenure holders an opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice and fair play. It emphasized the necessity of providing a post-order opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.
Issues: The key issue was whether the opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the recorded tenure holders who were adversely affected by the impugned orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned orders were passed in violation of natural justice and fair play, emphasizing the need for a post-order opportunity of hearing to safeguard the rights of the affected parties.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded on the limited point of opportunity of hearing, and the impugned orders were quashed. The matter was restored to the Consolidation Officer for de novo consideration, with the directive to decide the case expeditiously and afford the parties a fair trial.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. In this batch of cases, common question of fact and law are involved qua post order opportunity of hearing to the persons adversely affected due to the impugned orders passed ex-parte, as the principles of natural justice and fair play has been violated.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been deprived of from their valuable right, title and interest over the land in question by the order under challenge passed behind their back sans opportunity of hearing accorded to them.
3. The Writ Petition (B) No. 2093 of 2021 (Fakira and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others) is treated as a leading file in the batch of the cases as captioned above and accordingly, remaining cases are being decided.
4. It is apposite to mention that all writ petitions relate to the land in question situated in village Mustafapur, Thakurdwara, Moradabad. Order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer, under challenge, is common in all the writ petitions. Apart from that, in some of the writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition Nos. 1734 of 2021, 2094 of 2021, 2181 of 2021, 310 of 2021 order dated 23.12.2020 and in Writ Petition No. 2394 of 2021 order dated 23.11.2020 and in Writ Petition No. 1233 of 2022 and Writ Petition No. 1071 of 2022 order dated 19.11.2020 passed by the Consolidation Officer are challenged as well whereby name of the petitioners have been ordered to be expunged from the revenue record treating the land in question covered under Section 132 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in brevity UPZA and LR Act).
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, learned standing counsel representing State respondents and perused the record.
6. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and order proposed to be passed, this Court proceeds to decide the instant writ petition at admission stage with the consent of the counsel for the parties present, without their respective affidavits (counter and rejoinder), with liberty to the respondents that they may move recall application if any facts, as averred in the instant writ petition are found incorrect or misleading. It is apposite to mentioned that, in maximum writ petitions, respective affidavits could not be exchanged between both the parties despite the direction given by this Court to the parties concerned.
7. The petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.10.2016 and 23.12.2020 passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9A (2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (In brevity ‘UPCH Act’).
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the allottee of the land in question as Sirdar. Subsequently, by operation of law, they became bhumidhar with transferable right under Section 131-A of UPZA and LR Act. Long standing entry made in favour of the petitioners has illegally been disturbed by the orders under challenge passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceeding under Section 9A(2) of UPCH Act, which was initiated on the basis of the ex-parte report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It is further submitted that the Consolidation Officer by orders under challenge, has directed to delete the exchange value of the plot in question and keep the same out of consolidation operation. Aforesaid order was passed behind the back of the petitioners without issuing any notice and without affording them opportunity of hearing. At subsequent stage, the Consolidation Officer has passed fresh order dated 23.12.2020 that too on the basis of the ex-parte report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer/Consolidator. Aforesaid report was registered as well under Section 9A (2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Consolidation Officer, vide impugned order dated 23.12.2020, has issued a direction to expunge the name of the recorded tenure
The central legal principle established in the judgment is the requirement of providing a post-order opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, as a violation of natural justice and fair play re....
The principles of natural justice require that recorded tenure holders must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before their names are expunged from revenue records.
Administrative authorities cannot recall judicial orders without due process, and principles of natural justice require a hearing before adverse actions affecting rights.
The central legal point established is the requirement to afford a post-order opportunity of hearing to the affected party, as a violation of natural justice renders the order invalid.
The principles of natural justice require that a recorded tenure holder must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before their rights to land are altered or cancelled.
Judicial orders must be made with integrity and transparency, and any manipulation or procedural irregularity undermines the validity of such orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
