Advocates:
['MAHENDRA RAM MAURYA', 'C S C', '', 'KAUSHAL KISHORE MANI']

Court No. - 32

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7152 of 2021

Petitioner :- Rajpal

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Ram Maurya

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing

Counsel for the State respondents.

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,

the petitioner has questioned the order dated 19.12.2014,

whereby, the petitioner's mutation dated 17.08.2007 has come

to be cancelled and appeal filed against the said order has come

to be rejected by the Additional Commissioner

(Administration), Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur vide order

dated 03.03.2020.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner who is a

scheduled caste person and has obtained the land in question by

means of a sale deed executed in his favour by a valid allottee

whose allotment rights have come to be confirmed and

transferred later into Bhumidhari rights. It is also the case of the

petitioner that prior to the execution of sale deed a prior

permission was accorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate

concerned vide order dated 20.06.2007 in purported exercise of

power under Section 157-AA of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and

Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as 'Act, 1950') and

it is after the sale deed was duly executed, that the petitioner's

name came to be recorded in the revenue records vide order

dated 17.08.2007. However, the Gaon Sabha filed some

application for restoration of the said case and recall of the

order on the ground that the sale deed had been executed in

violation to the provisions contained under Section 157-AA of

the Act, 1950.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

order dated 19.12.2014 was passed in an ex parte manner as no

notice of the said case was ever served upon the petitioner and

therefore, the authorities were not justified in recalling the order

after almost seven years of the order originally passed by the

Tehsildar. He further submits that learned Additional

Commissioner did not advert to these aspects of the matter and

rejected he revision of the petitioner on merits qua the initial

order passed on 17.08.2007.

Learned Standing Counsel would support the impugned orders

on the ground that the land in question stood transferred to the

petitioner in violation of the provisions contained under Section

157(AA) of the Act, 1950.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Standing Counsel, I find that the order dated 19.12.2014 which

is impugned in the writ petition and by which the order dated

17.08.2007 has come to be set aside restoring the case, there is

no whisper of any notice have ever been sent to the petitioner

on the application filed by the Gaon Sabha. The Nayab

Tehsildar seems to have proceeded to set aside the order only on

the premise that the conveyance by which the land stood

transferred to the petitioner, was an instrument in violation of

the provisions as contained under Section 57(AA) of the Act,

1950.

Thus, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without any

notice or opportunity to the petitioner holds merit.

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the above facts as

he could not demonstrate from the order either of the Nayab

Tehsildar or the Additional Commissioner (Administration),

Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur that petitioner had the notice

of recall application and the date fixed thereupon. Learned

Standing Counsel however agrees that in the face of the facts

that there was no notice issued as there is no recital to that

effect in the order impugned in the present writ petition, the

matter can be directed to be re-examine by the Nayab Tehsildar

by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and

passing order afresh thereafter.

In such above view of the