Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Siya Ram and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation Ghaziabad and Others – Respondents
WRIT - B No. - 18610 of 2008
Decided On : 18-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C.K. Parekh, Harish Chandra Mishra
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Singh

Failure to provide a hearing and frame issues as required by the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act renders the adjudication void.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9A (2) and Section 48 - Revision and restoration applications - Order expunging petitioners' entry without framing issues and proper hearing was illegal. (Paras 8, 10-12)

(B) Opportunity of Hearing - Mandatory to afford parties the chance to be heard before passing adverse orders, especially in revision proceedings. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners' predecessor was recorded in basic year consolidation; objections led to expunging the record. Appeals to restore entry were allowed, but subsequently set aside by revision orders.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation for lack of fair hearing and improper procedure.

Issues: Whether due process was followed in expunging record and adjudicating objections without framing issues.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of framing issues and providing adequate hearings under the U.P. C.H. Act. The failure to do so rendered the Deputy Director's orders void.

Result: Writ petition allowed, orders are set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration.

Table of Content
1. factual background of land dispute (Para 2)
2. legal requirements for due process and hearing (Para 3 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. arguments regarding title and procedure (Para 4 , 5)
4. remittance of case for proper hearing (Para 12)
5. conclusion and lack of order as to costs (Para 13)

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajkumar Kesari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Land Management Committee and Sri Hasan Abbas, learned Standing Counsel for the for the State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the basic year of the consolidation operation the name of the predecessor-in-interests of the petitioners were recorded over the plot in question. Against the basic year entry of the Consolidation operation, an objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.CH. Act has been instituted by a third party (Rajkumar) and the entry made in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has been expunged by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 31.07.1999 and the plot in question was ordered to be recorded as banjar land. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 31.07.1999, a restoration application was filed which has been rejected vide order dated 17.07.2000. Another restoration application filed was rejected vide order dated 10.04.2002. Against the rejection orders of restoration application and against the main order dated 31.07.1999 an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the petitioners, which has been allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.04.2004 setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.07.2020, 31.07.1999 and 10.04.2002 as well as directed to record the name of the petitioners over the plot in question. Against the appellate order dated 22.04.2004 a revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the Land Management Committee and State of the U.P. along with the prayer for condonation of delay. The aforementioned revision filed by the Land Management Committee/ State has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 04.04.2006. The restoration application dated 16.05.2006 and 19.02.2008 filed against the order dated 04.04.2006 has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 04.03.2008.

Hence, this writ petition for following reliefs:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari call for the records and quash the orders dated 04.03.2008 and 04.04.2006 passed by respondent no. 1.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to not give effect and implement the impugned orders during the pendency of present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.

(iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."

3. This Court vide order dated 11.04.2008 entertained the matter and granted interim protection that no allotment of the land in dispute shall be made by the respondent no. 2/Land Management Committee. In pursuance of the interim order dated 11.04.2008 passed by the Court, the pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the name of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners' was recorded in the revenue record in the basic year of consolidation operation, as such the title objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act cannot be decided without framing issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. He further submitted that Consolidation Officer has expunged the entry made in the name of predecessor-in- interest of petitioners which cannot be sustained in view of the provisions contained un