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.

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 dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Region, vide common order dated 06.11.2025.

5. The petitioner asserts that being tenure-holder of a contiguous plot, he was entitled to notice and opportunity of hearing prior to any demarcation order under Section 24 of the U P Revenue Code, 2006[Code, 2006] read with Rule 22 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016[Rules, 2016]. The impugned orders, passed without such notice, stand vitiated for breach of natural justice.

6. It is contended that the demarcation having been conducted in violation of the mandatory provision of Rule 22 of the Rules, 2016, which requires notice to tenure-holders of contiguous plots, the entire proceedings and resulting orders stand vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem, an integral limb of the principles of natural justice enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that proceedings under Section 28 of the Code for correction of the revenue map concerning the same plot are pending before the competent authority and remain protected by an interim order. Thus, permitting the ex parte demarcation to operate would create inconsistency between two contemporaneous revenue proceedings.

8. Learned counsel for the State respondents and for the private respondents do not dispute the ex parte nature of the Section 24 proceedings, nor the petitioner’s entitlement, as an adjoining tenure-holder, to notice and hearing under Rule 22 .

9. Section 24 of the Code empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide boundary disputes through summary inquiry. However, Rule 22 (2) of the Rules mandates that tenure-holders of adjoining or contiguous plots be issued notice and given an opportunity of hearing before determination. Failure in this regard amounts to violation of audi alteram partem, which forms an integral component of Article 14 of the Constitution.

10. This procedural safeguard ensures fairness and transparency in boundary determination. Land boundaries have direct bearing on proprietary and possessory rights; thus, ignoring the participation of adjoining tenure-holders fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of such a demarcation. It is a well-settled proposition that violation of a mandatory procedural requirement, designed to ensure fairness, results in illegality rather than a mere irregularity.

11. The rationale underlying Rule 22 resonates with the constitutional requirement of audi alteram partem, meaning “hear the other side.” The principles of natural justice are not mere formality but a substantive guarantee that no one shall be condemned unheard. The doctrine underscores that every administrative or quasi-judicial authority exercising statutory power must provide affected persons with a fair chance of rep