The court reaffirmed the necessity of a fair hearing in judicial proceedings, emphasizing that no order should be made without affording all parties the opportunity to present their case.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.4. Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel has appeared on caveat on behalf of the private respondent no.3.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mutation proceedings were initiated by the private respondent no.3. In the said proceedings, the present petitioner had filed his objection. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had put in appearance and had sought time to file his objections.

4. It has been pointed out that the matter was listed on 22.07.2024 and since the Members of the Bar were abstaining from the judicial work, the next date fixed was 05.09.2024. It is submitted that an application was moved allegedly under the signatures of the petitioner status that the applicant be granted time to engage Shri Uma Shankar Chaturvedi and Shri Durga Prasad as counsel and in furtherance thereof the Vakalatnama of the said counsel was filed. However, subsequently another application was moved allegedly on behalf of the present petitioner stating that he wants to engage Shri Ram Kesh Chauhan and Shri Mohd. Pervaz as his counsel. This application was filed on 25.07.2024.

5. Then on 29.07.2024, the said application was not pressed and on the very same date another application was moved indicating that the earlier application by which time was sought to file objection was also not pressed.

6. The contention is that the said application moved on 29.07.2024 was not filed under the signatures of the present petitioner and in order to cause prejudice to the petitioner the said application has been moved. It is also submitted that once Shri Mohd. Parverz had moved an application not pressing his Vakalatnama, then he had no authority to not-press the application by which time was sought by the petitioner to file objection. In such circumstances, it is stated that the order dated 03.08.2024 has been passed of which the petitioner had no knowledge and the said order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner.

7. Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondent no.3 has very fairly submitted that since the order dated 03.08.2024 has been passed ex parte and the fact remains that the matter was last listed on 22.07.2024, thereafter the date fixed was 05.11.2024 and in absence of any application for preponing the date the order could not have been passed hence the order may be set aside. However, he further emphasises that the ground upon which the petitioner has filed the instant petition is malicious and incorrect facts have been stated as the petitioner does not have any worthwhile objections and in order to linger the proceedings, this has been done. It is also urged that had the petitioner been aggrieved, he could have taken action against his erring lawyers which has also not been done.

8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions as well as the fair stand of Shri Mishra that he does not support the order dated 03.08.2024 as it is ex parte and passed on a date for which no date with prior intimation was known to the parties, hence the impugned order is set aside solely on the ground that the opportunity of hearing was not granted to the parties concerned. Accordingly the impugned order dated 03.08.2024 is set aside and the Tehsildar shall re-hear the matter and decide it afresh. The parties shall appear before the Court of Tehsildar on 23rd of September, 2024 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, the matter shall be decided within three weeks. None of the parties shall be granted any unnecessary adjournment and