Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Mohammad Khalid Ameer – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent nos.6 to 10.
2. The petitioner contends that he is a tenure-holder of the adjoining Plot No. 2566, while the demarcation proceedings in respect of Plot No. 2565 were carried out ex parte against him. The Revenue Inspector is stated to have submitted a report dated 06.04.2023 without conducting any spot inspection or issuing notice to the petitioner. Relying solely on the said report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an ex parte order dated 02.06.2023.
3. Upon acquiring knowledge of the ex parte order, the petitioner filed a recall application dated 06.06.2023, which is stated to have been rejected on 19.12.2023 on hyper-technical grounds, without adjudicating his objections on merits.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred two appeals - Appeal No. 2903 of 2023 against the order dated 02.06.2023, and Appeal No. 2904 of 2023 against the rejection of the recall application. Both appeals were
The court held that failure to provide notice and opportunity for hearing in demarcation proceedings violated natural justice, rendering the ex parte orders illegal and subject to procedural recall.
The failure to notify a necessary party in land demarcation proceedings violates the principles of natural justice, necessitating a fresh examination of the case.
The principles of natural justice require proper notice and opportunity to be heard before decisions affecting rights are made; failure to comply invalidates proceedings.
The court emphasized that failure to provide notice and consider objections in administrative proceedings violates natural justice, allowing for judicial intervention despite alternative remedies.
The right to appeal is strictly a statutory right, and the absence of any specific provision for appeal in demarcation cases renders such appeals unsustainable.
Parties accepting land demarcation via signed joint statement on spot cannot subsequently object or appeal, as Section 107(7) H.P. Land Revenue Act bars challenges when no objections raised during pr....
Finality of demarcation proceedings under section 129 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code cannot be contested in subsequent applications under section 250.
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
