The failure to notify a necessary party in land demarcation proceedings violates the principles of natural justice, necessitating a fresh examination of the case.

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, the Land Management Committee concerned. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent No. 8.

2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 15.4.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad in Revision under Section 210 of the Revenue Code, 2006, order dated 14.3.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj in Appeal No. 00177 of 2021, under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as also the order dated 8.2.2021 passed by the Addl. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj in Case No. 06288 of 2020 under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3. By the order dated 8.2.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Prayagraj in Case No. 06288 of 2020 under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the objections preferred by the petitioner to the exparte demarcation report of the Revenue Inspector/respondent No. 6 was rejected and the demarcation report was confirmed. By the order dated 14.3.2024, the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 24 (4) of the Revenue Code, 2006 has been rejected. By the order dated 15.4.2024, the Board of Revenue has proceeded to reject the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 210 of the Revenue Code, 2006.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that his father along with others was the recorded tenure holder/Bhumidhar of Plot No. 122 area 0.5450 hectares situate in village Dadanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj. Subsequent to the death of his father in the year 2018, the petitioner succeeded to the share of his father in the aforesaid plot No. 122. The plot No. 122 is adjacent and contiguous to plot No. 123 area 0.610 hectare belonging to the respondent No. 8 and other tenure holders. The respondent No. 8 initiated proceedings for demarcation and fixation of boundaries of his Plot No. 123 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner was not made a party to the proceedings under Section 24 in violation of the sub Rule 1 of Rule 22 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. The Sub Divisional Magistrate/respondent No. 4 called for a report vide order dated 27.7.2020 from the respondent No. 6/Revenue Inspector. The respondent No. 6 carried out an exparte inspection and demarcation exercise relating to Plot No. 123. In the report submitted on 14.8.2020, it was stated that inspection was conducted on the spot after issuing the notices to the concerned parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner or his father whose name stood recorded in the relevant records even after his death by virtue of being a tenure holder of the adjacent and contiguous Plot No. 122 and thus, a necessary party and the exercise of demarcation and inspection was carried out without intimating the petitioner of the date of inspection and demarcation which was in violation of Sub Rule 7, 8 & 9 of Rule 22 of the 2016 Rules. Besides, it is submitted that the assertion in the spot inspection memo that notices were given to all the affected parties prior to inspection is ex-facie illegal and incorrect inasmuch as, there is no mention of the name of the father of the petitioner or the petitioner for that matter and the names of one Sonu Singh, Dhussa, Suraj and Shyamkali are mentioned who are not the tenure holders of Gata No. 122 and have no interest in the said gata. The respondent No. 6 thereafter submitted a demarcation report on 17.8.2020, taking a chak road abutting the plot No. 125 as the fi