Back
JASPREET SINGH
Anantram – Appellant
Versus
Distt. Magistrate Sadar Dist. Pratapgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Shri Jai Pal Singh learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.3 who has filed a counter-affidavit which is taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has received the copy of the counter-affidavit but he does not propose to file any rejoinder-affidavit since the facts stated in the writ petition could not be effectively controverted even in the counter-affidavit.
3. In view of the aforesaid, the Court has proceeded to hear the parties and with their consent, the petition is being decided finally.
4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 is that he had initiated proceedings under Section 32/38 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006. Since certain orders were passed in favour of the petitioner during the consolidation operations but they were not duly reflected in the revenue record, consequently this prompted the petitioner to move the said application, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.1.
5. It is further urged
The court emphasized the necessity of providing all parties an adequate opportunity to be heard in judicial proceedings, ruling that procedural irregularities render decisions unsustainable.
Judicial proceedings must follow prescribed procedures; failure to document and hear parties leads to invalid orders, undermining public trust in the justice system.
Restoration applications for ex-parte decrees are maintainable and do not abate under the U.P.C.H. Act, even if consolidation operations are ongoing.
An order passed without issuing notice to involved parties and without condoning delay is jurisdictionally incorrect, violating principles of procedural fairness.
A writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy when the impugned order violates principles of natural justice.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
The court emphasized the necessity of consolidating related cases to avoid conflicting decisions and ensure judicial efficiency under the U.P. Revenue Code.
The court ruled that a party's knowledge of an order and failure to justify significant delays in appeals precludes the recall of orders passed on merits.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
