SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Iqbal Ahmad and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. and 26 Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 25056 OF 2019.
Decided On : 31-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh, Shreya Gupta
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Kartikeya Saran, Kunal Ravi Singh, Manjari Singh, Rajendra Kumar Misra, Shivam Yadav, Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, Tarun Agrawal

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 24 - Procedural violations in land dispute - Petitioners, co-sharers of land, challenged the order allowing an application by the opposing parties without due notice. The court emphasized the necessity of affording an opportunity for hearing prior to finalizing decisions affecting tenure-holders. (Paras 9, 11, 13, 17)

(B) Natural Justice - The principle mandates that parties with vested interests must be heard before critical decisions impacting their rights are made. (Paras 10, 12)

(C) Alternative Remedies - The court held that where an order violates the principles of natural justice, it may still entertain a writ petition despite the existence of an alternative remedy. (Paras 10, 12)

Table of Content
1. factual background of land dispute. (Para 2)
2. arguments regarding illegal proceedings and lack of hearing. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court's evaluation of proceeding and necessity of hearing. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. legal standards and precedence on alternative remedies. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. final orders and directions for resolution of dispute. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr Arohi Bhalla and Mr. Shivam Yadav, counsel for respondent no. 27 and Mr. Kunal Ravi Singh, counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 26.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners along with others namely, Anwar Ahmad, Abrar Ali and Smt. Tamizan are co-sharer in the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 33 & 46. Prior to the initiation of the proceeding under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, Anwar Ahmad and four others including petitioners filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for Khasra No. 33 along-with other khasra numbers, the aforesaid suit was numbered as Suit No. 20 of 1998-99. In the aforementioned partition suit, parties to the suit are co-sharer of various khata and plot numbers. The aforementioned partition suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2003 whereby a decree for partition was issued in respect of Khata Nos. 30, 31 & 32 and Khasra No. 33 & 46 are part of Khata No. 32. Against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2003, respondent no.3rd set filed an appeal in the Court of Commissioner, which was registered as Appeal No. 56 of 2002- 03 and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.12.2003. The judgment and decree of first appellate court was challenged before the Board of Revenue and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 06.02.2004 modifying the decree to the effect that plaintiff shall be entitled to 35/95 share and defendants shall be entitled to 61/96 share. The judgment of the partition suit was challenged before this Court through Writ Petition No. 11891 of 2004 by Anwar Ahmad, which was entertained and interim order was passed to the effect that preparation of final decree may go on but final decree shall not be signed, the aforementioned writ petition is still pending before this Court. During pendency of the aforementioned writ petition before this Court, another Writ Petition No. 33310 of 2018 was filed by one Riyaz Ahmad with the prayer to demarcate and separate the Plot No. 33/1, 33/3, 33/2, 33/4, 46, 47, 48 and 49 situated at Village-Shahbad @ Mitthepur, Paragana Loni, Tehsil and District-Ghaziabad. The aforementioned Writ Petition No. 33310 of 2018 was disposed of vide order dated 03.10.2018 with a direction to the petitioners to make an application under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of two weeks and the same shall be decided within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of the application and deposit of the statutory fee with notices to all concerned parties. After passing of the order dated 03.10.2018, respondent 2nd set filed an application under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. Petitioners were not arrayed as a party in aforementioned Writ Petition No. 33310 of 2018, as such, petitioners were not aware of the aforementioned proceeding initiated by respondent 2nd set. Respondent no. 3 vide order dated 29.04.2019, allowed the application/case under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 filed by respondent 2nd set in respect to Khasra No. 33 on the basis of the report of Tehsildar dated 13.03.2019. Petitioners were not aware about the aforesaid proceeding under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. However, petitioners came to know about the same when respondent 2nd set tried to interfere in possession of the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top