IMPORTANT POINT
Failure to record reasons and comply with court directions in orders under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 renders the orders unsustainable in law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners by means of present writ petition have assailed the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.2-District Magistrate/Collector, District Basti in Appeal No.1028 (computerized case No. D-202317140001028, under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the respondent No.3-Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Tehsil Sadar, District Basti in Case No.11643 of 2021 (computerized case No. T202117140311643), under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3. Considering the nature of the order to be passed in the present writ petition, this Court is not inclined to call for any counter affidavit.

4. The sole ground on which orders have been challenged is that the Tehsildar has not recorded any reason while passing the impugned order 15.12.2022 inasmuch it has not applied its independent mind in passing the said order. It is further contended that the Teshildar as well as appellate authority while deciding the proceedings under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 has failed to comply with the directions of this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. and Others 2023 (1) ADJ 154 inasmuch as neither the statement of the Lekhpal was recorded nor the petitioner was given any notice and opportunity of hearing to cross examine the Lekhpal. In such view of the fact, the order passed by the Tehsildar cannot be sustained in law and the order passed by the appellate authority also cannot be sustained for the aforesaid reason.

5. Considering the nature of the order to be passed in the present writ petition, this Court is not inclined to call for any counter affidavit.

6. Be that as it may, perusal of the orders impugned reveals that no reason has been assigned by the Tehsildar in passing the impugned order inasmuch as while deciding the proceeding under Section 67 of UP Revenue Code, 2006 he has failed to record any statement of the Lekhpal nor the petitioner was given any notice and opportunity of hearing to cross examine the Lekhpal. The appellate authority has also failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

7. In such view of the fact, the orders impugned passed by authorities below are not sustainable in law in view of the judgement of this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh (supra) and are hereby set aside.

8. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Tehsil Sadar, District Basti to decide the dispute afresh after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties and as per the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh (supra).

9. In case, there is any concealment of fact by the petitioner in obtaining the present order, the respondents are at liberty to file recall application to recall the said order.