Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Mohammad Faizal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 10312 of 2024
Decided On : 06-12-2024
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Shri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents no.5 and 6 which is taken on record.
2. In pursuance of the earlier order dated 04.12.2024 passed by this Court Shri Aakash Pandey, Naib Tehsildar, Baksi-Ka-Talab, Lucknow is present in person alongwith the original record. The order dated 04.12.2024 reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The learned Standing Counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions for perusal of the Court which is taken on record.
However, from the perusal thereof, a query made by the Court has not been clearly explained as to under what circumstances, the order came to be passed on 09.10.2024 wherein the matter was already listed on 22.10.2024.
The Naib Tehsildar, BKT, Lucknow shall appear alongwith the original records on 06.12.2024.
List/put up this matter on 06.12.2024, as fresh."
3. From the perusal of the original record, it indicates that a hand written order was passed by the Presiding Officer on 09.10.2024, indicating that the counsel for the applicant (the person who had moved a restoration application) was present. Put up on 22.10.2024 for evidence of the person moving the restoration application. Thereafter with a different ink the order was continued, that thereafter, Shri Siddique Zafar was represented by his counsel Shri Prince who had filed his Vakalatnama.
4. The record further indicates that after 22.10.2024, six dates were fixed and on all the six dates the matter was not heard and dates were fixed but no order sheet is signed by the Presiding Officer, then another order dated 09.10.2024 has been passed which is a typed order and is duly signed by the Presiding Officer.
5. It is also pointed out that on the next date so fixed i.e. 22.10.2024 the members of the Bar were abstaining from judicial work, hence the next date fixed was 05.11.2024.
6. It is submitted that despite the said order sheet as mentioned above which was all hand written and is part of annexure no.6 yet a typed order dated 09.10.2024 was also passed by the Presiding Officer wherein an order directing the parties not to alienate the property was passed.
7. It is urged that the said typed order dated 09.10.2024 the certified copy of which is annexure no.1 is completely at variance both in context of its tenor and content and both the orders have been signed by the same Presiding Officer which apparently indicates that the said order annexure no.1 has been passed in order to benefit some party and that the typed order dated 09.10.2024 was not known to the petitioner nor his counsel and it was not even passed in their presence on 09.10.2024 and thus its a fake order which is an outcome of extraneous consideration. It is in the aforesaid context that the matter was placed before the Court which persuaded the Court to summon the record which is available today.
8. This Court upon perusal of the original record finds that the order sheet starts from 12.09.2024 and goes upto 05.12.2024, however, for the sake of ready reference and ease of perusal and for testing the submissions of the petitioner, the order sheet available on the original record is being scanned and is being reproduced hereinafter:-
9. The controversy involved in the instant case relates to the fact that the proceedings were initiated by Mohd. Zunaid Siddiqui i.e. private respondent no.5 under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006. Another set of proceedings for mutation under section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 was initiated and it came to be decided on 13.08.2024. It is in this context that an application for recall was moved by Shri Mohd. Zunaid Siddiqui on 27.08.2024, seeking recall of the order dated 13.08.2024 and it is upon the said application that the restoration application was registered and notices were issued for 12.09.2024.
10.
Judicial integrity must be maintained through consistency in orders, and manipulation of judicial records undermines the rule of law and public confidence.
Judicial proceedings must follow prescribed procedures; failure to document and hear parties leads to invalid orders, undermining public trust in the justice system.
Orders must adhere to principles of natural justice, and failure to do so renders them invalid.
An order passed without issuing notice to involved parties and without condoning delay is jurisdictionally incorrect, violating principles of procedural fairness.
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.
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.
Judicial orders must be made with integrity and transparency, and any manipulation or procedural irregularity undermines the validity of such orders.
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.
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.
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
