Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Bhupendra Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Pratapgarh and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 10297 of 2024
Decided On : 06-12-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. representation of parties before the court (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenge to prior orders and context of hearings (Para 3) |
| 3. background of prior proceedings under u.p. revenue code (Para 4 , 5 , 12) |
| 4. irregularities in judicial proceedings noted (Para 6 , 7 , 18) |
| 5. discrepancies in order-sheets and their implications (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 6. issues with judicial procedures and delays (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 7. reinstatement of proceedings due to flawed order (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. call for systemic reform in revenue courts (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. final decision on petition and imposition of costs (Para 26) |
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 on 05.07.2021 and it is urged that while the said restoration application was pending the same came to be allowed by the order dated 17.10.2023, whereas the matter was not heard on the said date and the record would indicate that the matter was last listed on 13.10.2023 fixing 17.10.2023. Thereafter, a detailed order was passed on 17.10.2023 allowing the recall application fixing 18.11.2023 and thereafter the matter went on for certain dates and ultimately on 05.02.2024, the proceedings of the petitioner under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was dismissed as not maintainable.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has brought on record the certified copy of the extract of the cause list dated 05.02.2024 to indicate that his case was not listed, whether it is also stated that once the matter was adjourned on 13.10.2023 for 17.10.2023 and the next date fixed was 18.11.2023, in the meantime, the order impugned allowing the restoration application of the private respondents was allowed without hearing the petitioner and it is attempted to be urged that there is manipulation in the order sheet only to grant undue benefit to the contesting respondents.
Before issuance of notice, this Court is of the opinion that it will be appropriate to examine the original records, accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District-Pratapgarh shall appear in person before this Court with the original records on 6th December, 2024.
List this matter on 6th December, 2024 as fresh."
4. From the perusal of the record which has been made available, it indicates that the proceedings were initiated under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which came to be allowed (even though ex-parte) in favour of the petitioner on 29.06.2021.
5. The record further indicates that a recall application was moved by the respondent No.3, namely, Nawab Ali, on 05.07.2021 and he respondent No.3 is represented before this Court by Shri Ravi Shankar Mishra, Advocate.
6. From a perusal of the original record, it indicates that the matter was listed on 13.10.2023 on which date apparently there is no order except mentioning of the next date i.e. 17
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
