The court emphasized that failure to provide notice and consider objections in administrative proceedings violates natural justice, allowing for judicial intervention despite alternative remedies.

JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Shri. Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and 2, Shri. Indrajeet Shukla, Advocate who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3, which is taken on record and perused the material available on record.

2. The present controversy has arisen out of the proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 with regard to the demarcation of land.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that objections were filed by the private respondents before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tarabganj, District Gonda, who had allowed the objections of the respondents by means of order dated 18.02.2013. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that in the aforesaid proceedings, notice was not given to the petitioner and consequently, he could not participate in the said proceedings while a portion of his land was held to be excess of the area to which he is entitled and the said excess area was sought to be reduced in the said demarcation proceedings. The petitioner, after coming to know of the order dated 18.02.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, had preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for determination afresh.

4. In the meanwhile, fresh report was obtained by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and by means of order dated 13.01.2024, fresh order was passed. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, as the objections against the spot inspection were not considered by Sub Divisional Magistrate and consequently, filed a revision before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, who has rejected the said revision by means of the order dated 20.02.2024, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

5. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for respondents that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that this Court has considered this issue in the case of Smt. Hadisul Nisha v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), AIR Online 2021 All 2060, where this Court was of the view that there are certain exceptions carved out in presence of which a petition would be maintainable under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and would not be dismissed merely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

7. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that firstly in the first round of litigation no notice was given to the petitioner in the demarcation proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 despite the fact that his land was directly in question and was declared to be in excess of the area to which he was entitled. In the second round of litigation, he has raised objection with regard to the spot inspection, which was never considered by any of the authorities and consequently submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition and merely on availability of alternative remedy, the petition cannot be dismissed.

8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, and especially the fact that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing in the first round of litigation and even in the second round of litigation, a specific objection has been raised by him, which has been recorded by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in his impugned order but failed to address for consider the same and accordingly, he has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested to him and consequently, in such a matter this Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition without relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him unde