Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH
Bhupendra Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Pratapgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Shri Ravi Shankar Mishra, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting private respondents no.3.
2. In furtherance of the order dated 04.12.2024, Shri Shailendra Kumar Verma, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Prathagarh is present before the Court alongwith the original record.
3. The order dated 04.12.2024 is being reproduced hereinafter to put the matter in a perspective:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
Under challenge is the order dated 17.10.2023 as well as order dated 05.02.2024. As an impact of the aforesaid two orders, it is urged that the petitioner had filed proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which came to be allowed in favour of the petitioner on 29.06.2021. Thereafter, the private respondents moved an application for recall
Judicial proceedings must follow prescribed procedures; failure to document and hear parties leads to invalid orders, undermining public trust in the justice system.
Judicial integrity must be maintained through consistency in orders, and manipulation of judicial records undermines the rule of law and public confidence.
The court ruled that an ex parte order requires a recall application to be maintainable, emphasizing the need for parties to be heard before any interim orders are issued.
An order passed without issuing notice to involved parties and without condoning delay is jurisdictionally incorrect, violating principles of procedural fairness.
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.
Orders must adhere to principles of natural justice, and failure to do so renders them invalid.
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
The court established that restoration proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are valid despite the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing jurisdictional competence and subs....
The court emphasized that orders affecting rights must follow due process, ensuring fair opportunity for all parties before any decision is made.
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
