Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Kedar And Others - Petitioner
Vs.
D.D.C.And Others - Respondent
WRIT - B No. - 14185 of 1986
Decided On : 05-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A.S. Rai
For the Respondent: U.K. Misra,Kunal Ravi Singh,S.C.,Udai Bhanu Singh

Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their arguments; haste in decision-making without hearing parties is impermissible.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 48 - Consolidation proceedings - Petitioners challenged ex-parte order of Revisional Authority, claiming denial of opportunity to present their case - Court found that the Revisional Authority acted in haste, causing prejudice to petitioners - The order was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 17, 21, 23)

(B) Legal principles - Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their arguments; haste in decision-making without hearing parties is impermissible. (Paras 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested an ex-parte order allowing a revision petition filed by respondents, claiming it was passed without proper notice or opportunity to be heard.

Findings of Court:
The Revisional Authority's decision was set aside due to procedural impropriety and lack of fair hearing.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Revisional Authority acted in haste and whether the petitioners were denied a fair opportunity to present their case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that decisions must not be made in haste and that all parties should be given a fair chance to present their arguments, as mandated by Section 48 of the Act.

Result: Writ petition is partly allowed and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. This case is arising out of consolidation proceedings. In the basic year, over plot no. 421 area 1 acre 73 decimal situated at village Kodari, Pargana Bayalasi, Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur, name of original petitioner's father Dallan was recorded.

2. Opposite parties no. 5 to 9 filed their objections before the Consolidation Officer that they along with the petitioners belong to a joint family and disputed land was joint family property and as such they claimed co-tenancy right in the disputed land.

3. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 23.03.1967 rejected the objections of respondents under Section 9A(2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and entries of basic year were confirmed. Relevant part of the order is quoted below -:

4. Contesting respondents being aggrieved by the above order filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, however, it was dismissed on 08.09.1967. A copy of said order is not annexed along with this writ petition. The above order was challenged at behest of the respondents by way of filing a revision petition.

5. The petitioners filed a transfer application before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur as revision petitioner was pending for many years, however, same was rejected by an order dated 12.05.1982 with a direction to parties to appear on 31. 05.1982.

6. Case of petitioners is that the Revisional Authority who was at verge of his retirement has expedited the proceedings and rejected prayer of adjournment and proceeded with revision petition and decided by an ex-parte order dated 29.05.1982 whereby revision was allowed. Relevant part of the order is mentioned below-:

7. The petitioners thereafter filed a recall application dated 31. 05.1985 to recall above referred order dated 29.05.1982 which was dismissed by an order dated 04.02.1986. Meanwhile, order for ‘amaldaramad parvana’ was issued vide order dated 7.12.1982 by the Consolidation Officer. The above order was challenged by way of filing an appeal, which was dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 04.04.1985. A revision was also filed by petitioner against it which was dismissed by order dated 04.02.1986. Relevant part of order dated 31.05.1985 is reproduced below-:

8. Aforesaid orders dated 29.05.1982 and 04.02.1986 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation are under challenge before this Court.

9. Sri A.S. Rai, learned Advocate for petitioners has submitted that Revisional Authority has passed impugned orders in haste. The Authority has not permitted the petitioners to take adjournment on reasonable grounds and by an ex-parte impugned order dated 29.05.1982 has erroneously allowed revision filed by the respondents and further erroneously dismissed the restoration application and a revision petition filed by petitioner arising out of ‘amaldaramad’ proceedings which has greatly prejudiced the petitioners.

10. Learned Advocate has referred averments made in paragraph nos. 7 to 17 -:

8. That to the greatest surprise of the petitioners, without any information, notice or knowledge to them 20.5.82 was scribed as date fixed for hearing.

9. That anyhow the petitioners came to know the subsequent fixed date i.e. 20.5.82 and their counsel moved an adjournment application on 20.5.82 on the ground that in the transfer proceedings, the superior Court had already fixed 31.5.82 as such the hearing of the revision may be deferred till 31.5.82. The recital in the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the application of the petitioners was filed on 22.5.82 is wrong.

10. That having entertained the petitioner