Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
JASPREET SINGH, J.
Smt. Ghasita – Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Revenue Lko. Thru. Secy. And Others - Respondents
Writ B. No. 643 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2024
(A) Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Section 54 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Recall proceedings - The order dated 31.07.2021 was passed ex parte as the State was not heard, making the recall application maintainable - The interim order staying the principal order was improper as it was passed without condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. (Paras 12, 14, 22, 25)
(B) Natural Justice - The authority must provide an opportunity to be heard before passing an order affecting rights - The distinction between recall and review is significant, as recall does not involve merits but ensures fairness. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order dismissing his revision against the recall of a favorable order, arguing that the State's failure to contest the proceedings invalidated the recall application.
Findings of Court:
The order dated 04.12.2021 was set aside as it was passed without condoning the delay and without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the recall application was maintainable and if the interim order was valid without condoning the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of hearing all parties before passing orders that affect their rights, distinguishing between recall and review applications.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Jaspreet Singh, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Pandey, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the respondent no.3, as a consequence, in recall proceedings at the behest of State the principal order dated 31.07.2021 passed in favour of the petitioner has been stayed.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated by the petitioner under Section 54 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act 1901. The said proceedings were contested by the State who had also filed their written objections and a copy thereof has been brought on record as annexure no.3. It is also submitted that the respondents were delaying the proceedings and as such the respondent no.3 by means of order dated 31.07.2021 allowed the application of the petitioner.
4. The State Authorities being aggrieved preferred an application for recall on 04.12.2021 which was also accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On the said application, the respondent no.3 on the very same date i.e. 04.12.2021 entertained the application for recall and also as an interim measure passed an order dated 04.12.2021 staying the operation of the order dated 31.07.2021. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which has been dismissed noticing the fact that since the recall application is already seized by the respondent no.3, the petitioner would have ample opportunity to raise objection and contest the proceedings, hence it declined to interfere.
5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold:- (i) It is urged that once the respondents had already filed their written objections and later it did not participate to contest the proceedings, in such a situation, the orders have been passed on merits and therefore neither an application for recall or review would be maintainable and consequently the Authority had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 04.12.2021. (ii) It is further urged that even otherwise if at all it may be considered that the application for recall could have been entertained but the fact remains that it was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and before condoning the delay, the Authority did not possess the jurisdiction to pass any order staying the operation of the principal orders dated 31.07.2021 which in affect amounts to entering into merits of the matter and allowing the petition by an interim order and thus for both the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order was bad.
6. Shri Hemant Pandey, learned counsel for the State has submitted that even though the State may have filed his objection but the fact remains that on the date of passing of the order dated 31.07.2021, the State was not heard and to that extent the order is ex parte which permits the State to move an application for recall.
7. He has further referred to Regulation 489 as contained in the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Manual and has drawn the attention of the Court that the power to grant ad interim ex parte order vests with the authority and in such a case where the property of the State was at stake hence it was justified for the authority to have passed an order and the same cannot be faulted for want of jurisdiction.
8. It has also been urged that the matter is already pending before the authority concerned and it will be open for the petitioner to contest the case on merits and in any case since the petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 04.12.2021, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such discretionary orders which do not impact the final rights of the parties may not be inte
The court ruled that an ex parte order requires a recall application to be maintainable, emphasizing the need for parties to be heard before any interim orders are issued.
Judicial proceedings must follow prescribed procedures; failure to document and hear parties leads to invalid orders, undermining public trust in the justice system.
A stranger to the proceeding has no right to file a recall application against a judgment and decree passed on the basis of a compromise.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and governed by their own procedural provisions, and the general procedural r....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the appealability of an order rejecting an application for temporary injunction under Section 146 of the Revenue Code, and its non-revisability und....
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
The Board of Revenue can recall an order if it determines that jurisdictional requirements were not met, emphasizing the need for proper documentation to support tenancy claims under the Orissa Estat....
The primary prayer in both recall applications was substantially the recall of the order dated December 6, 2018, and the Court rejected the second recall application on the ground of constructive res....
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
