In a series of recent judgments, High Courts across India have emphatically underscored the indispensability of adhering to established procedural law, reinforcing that convenience and suspicion cannot override statutory mandates and the principles of natural justice. Rulings from the Allahabad and Rajasthan High Courts serve as potent reminders to the judiciary and administrative bodies that procedural fairness is not a mere formality but a cornerstone of the legal system, particularly when citizens' rights to property and a fair hearing are at stake.

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that altering revenue records is a judicial, not administrative, act requiring a mandatory hearing, while the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that serving summons to military personnel via WhatsApp is invalid, insisting on strict compliance with the special procedures laid out in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Altering Revenue Records is a Judicial Matter Requiring a Hearing: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Hanif Khan and others v. Additional Commissioner Lucknow and others , delivered a significant judgment clarifying the nature of proceedings under the Land Revenue Act. Justice Irshad Ali held that any modification, including removal or substitution of an entry in revenue records under Section 34 of the Act, constitutes a judicial matter, thereby making an opportunity of hearing for the concerned parties an absolute necessity.

The Court's pronouncement draws a critical line between administrative and judicial functions, emphasizing that the latter carries a deep-seated requirement for procedural due process. Justice Ali observed:

“Grant of opportunity of hearing in administrative matters is comparatively a recent doctrine. As far as judicial matters are concerned since the time when Courts were established it has been the most essential ingredient of procedural law that no order shall be passed without hearing parties concerned. Removal and substitution of entry in revenue records under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act or any other provision is a judicial matter making it all the more necessary to provide opportunity of hearing to the party concerned.”

Background of the Decades-Long Dispute

The case stemmed from a land auction conducted in 1961 due to a default in land revenue payment. Although the sale was confirmed in 1963, a portion of the land was submerged under the Sharda river, delaying the issuance of a sale certificate and transfer of possession. It was only in 1995, after the land reappeared, that the certificate was issued and the petitioners' names were mutated in the revenue records, succeeding their father.

However, a year later, the Tehsildar cast doubt on the original auction proceedings in a report to the U.P. Ziladhikari. This led to a summary cancellation of the revenue entries by an order dated August 16, 1996. Crucially, this entire process was conducted ex-parte, without any notice or opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioners.

Upon discovering the order, the petitioners sought remedy through a revision under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, which was allowed. The matter was remanded for restoration. However, the Pargna Adhikari dismissed the restoration application without waiting for the original case records he himself had called for. A subsequent revision against this dismissal was also rejected, prompting the challenge before the High Court.

High Court’s Analysis: Suspicion is No Substitute for Evidence

The High Court meticulously dismantled the reasoning of the lower authorities. It noted that the cancellation was based on mere suspicion arising from the long gap between the 1961 auction and the 1995 issuance of the sale certificate. The Court found this rationale insufficient, especially since no effort was made to procure and examine the original auction file.

“In the present case, none of the Courts Below have come to the categoric finding that the auction proceedings had not taken place, as such the sale certificate was wrongly issued. Rather they have expressed their suspicion... which cannot be a ground for its cancellation particularly in the circumstances when none of the Courts Below ever ordered production of file relating to the issue of sale certificate nor any report has been obtained from the record room or from the lower staff as to whether any such file was ever existed or not.”

The Court emphasized that even in cases of suspected fraud, the concerned authority is duty-bound to issue notice to the affected party whose name is being removed from the record. Relying on the precedent in Chaturgun and others v. State of U.P. and others , the bench reiterated that parties must be heard as they are often in a position to prove the authenticity of entries.

Holding that the actions of the lower courts constituted a clear violation of natural justice, the High Court set aside the impugned orders. It allowed the writ petitions and directed the matter to be reheard afresh, with a specific instruction to call for the records of the original auction proceedings before making a final determination.

WhatsApp Summons to Soldiers Invalid; Mandatory Procedure Must Be Followed: Rajasthan High Court

In another critical decision on procedural law, the Rajasthan High Court has declared that serving summons on an active-duty soldier via WhatsApp is not a valid or sufficient service. In Deevan Singh v/s. State of Rajasthan & Anr. , Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that the special, mandatory procedures outlined for serving Armed Forces personnel under Order V Rule 28 of the CPC and Order 31 Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018, must be strictly adhered to.

This ruling safeguards the rights of military personnel, recognizing their unique service conditions and the legislative intent to create a distinct and reliable mechanism for ensuring they receive legal notice.

Factual Matrix: Ex-Parte Order in a Maintenance Case

The petitioner, a sepoy in the Indian Army, was subjected to an ex-parte order by a Family Court in Karauli. The court had directed him to pay ₹12,000 per month in maintenance to his wife under Section 125 CrPC. This order was passed after three attempts to serve summons conventionally failed. The Family Court then resorted to sending the summons via WhatsApp, deemed it sufficient service, and proceeded without the petitioner's presence.

The petitioner challenged this, arguing that he was posted in a high-altitude operational area and that the court had completely ignored the prescribed legal procedure. His counsel contended that the summons should have been sent to his Commanding Officer, which is the statutory channel designed to ensure the soldier can be officially relieved from duty to attend court.

Court’s Observations: Acknowledging the Unique Status of Armed Forces

Justice Dhand’s judgment highlighted the specialized nature of the Armed Forces and the corresponding need for specialized legal procedures. The Court stated:

“The Army, the Air Force and the Navy is collectively known as the Armed Forces which are highly organized and disciplined forces... Special procedures/processes have been made by the Legislature for service of summons upon the members of the Armed Forces… when a case is filed against them in their personal capacity.”

The Court explained that both Order V Rule 28 CPC and the state-specific General Rules mandate that summons for a soldier must be sent to their Commanding Officer. This process is not a procedural nicety but a substantive safeguard that allows the military command to make necessary arrangements for the soldier's relief from duty.

The petitioner’s Commanding Officer had even issued a certificate confirming his posting in an operational area during the relevant period, making it impossible for him to be relieved. The Family Court, however, overlooked this context and the law.

In unequivocal terms, the High Court held:

“Hence, under such circumstances, the service of summons upon the petitioner on his WhatsApp mobile number cannot be treated as sufficient in view of the mandate contained under Order 31 Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018 and under Order V Rule 28 CPC.”

Finding the Family Court's approach to be a "gross violation of the principles of natural justice," the High Court set aside the ex-parte order. The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing, providing both parties an opportunity to be heard. To prevent future lapses, Justice Dhand also directed that the judgment be circulated to all Judicial Officers and Family Court Judges in Rajasthan.

Conclusion: A Reaffirmation of Due Process

Together, these rulings from the Allahabad and Rajasthan High Courts send a clear message: procedural law is the bedrock of substantive justice. While technology offers new means of communication and administrative efficiency is desirable, neither can be used to circumvent fundamental legal principles like the right to be heard ( audi alteram partem ) and adherence to statutory mandates.

For legal practitioners, these decisions reinforce the importance of vigilance regarding procedural compliance. For the lower judiciary and administrative bodies, they serve as a crucial directive to prioritize due process over expediency, ensuring that justice is not only done but is manifestly seen to be done.