The court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must adhere to procedural integrity, and any order based on false representations is void.

JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Sri. Ravi Shankar Tewari along with Sri. Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri. Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Sri. Rakesh Bajpai, learned counsel of the private respondent no. 2 and Sri. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing under the authority of Sri. Tushar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

2. For the reasons recorded hereinafter, the notice to the private respondent nos. 3, 4, 9 and 10 is dispensed with.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the ex-parte order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1, in case No. 1836 of 2023, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code of 2006).

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disputed land in question comprises of Plot Nos. 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 647, 648 and 649 in Village Kursi, Pargana Kursi, Tehsil Fatehpur District Barabanki. The petitioner has 1/3rd share in all the aforesaid plots along with the other co-tenure holders who are the private respondent nos. 9 and 10.

5. It is further stated that the private respondent no. 10 who was the co-tenure holder without seeking demarcation or division of his share, sold his 1/3rd undivided share by means of two separate sale deeds. Half of his 1/3rd share was sold to the private respondent no. 2 by means of sale deed dated 03.10.2022 and the remaining half share was sold to his wife i.e. the private respondent no. 3 by a separate sale deed of the same date i.e. 03.10.2022.

6. The record states that the private respondent nos. 2 and 3 entered in an agreement with the private respondent no. 4 and executed a lease for a period of 29 years and 11 months and it is the private respondent no. 4 who claims to be lessee and has started construction on the property for setting up a cold storage.

7. It is further stated that the private respondent no. 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 80 of the Code of 2006 seeking declaration that the land purchased from the private respondent no. 10 be declared as non-agricultural.

8. It is urged that while making the said application, the private respondents no. 2 and 3 indicated that there were other co-tenure holders and that the instant application under Section 80 of the Code of 2006 was being filed with the consent of the other co-tenure holders as well.

9. The petitioner denies this and it is specifically stated that the petitioner did not give any affidavit nor his consent or no objection for declaring the said land as non-agricultural.

10. It also submitted that the application under Section 80 of the Code of 2006 filed by the private respondent nos. 2 and 3 was accompanied by an affidavit which contained false averments.

11. It is further urged that even the sale deed of the private respondents no. 2 and 3 was not valid, inasmuch as, the sale deed without demarcation and proper division of the 1/3rd share could not have been executed by the private respondent no. 10 in favour of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 nor any right could be conferred on the private respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of the said sale deed.

12. It is further urged that the decision rendered by the respondent no. 1 dated 12.05.2023 is based on false facts, hence, the same is a nullity and even otherwise any order which is effectuated with fraud and concealment is a nullity, apart from the fact that the permission/declaration granted or treating the land as non-agricultural is per-se void, hence, the private respondent nos. 2 and 3 or their lessee i.e. the respondent no. 4 would not be conferred with any right to raise constructions.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that even though the petitioner had moved an application for recall of the order dated 12.05.2023 before the respondent no. 1 who merely registered the application in a casual manner without considering the rel