A single-judge bench quashed an interim order cancelling a revenue mutation. The court held the Tehsildar violated natural justice by passing the order without hearing the petitioner or perusing records, even though the applicant's standing was untenable.
The order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Tehsildar, Meerut quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9965 of 2014
Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Akhtar Ali,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the State.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.10.2013 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed at the instance of respondent no.5 whereby the Tehsildar, Meerut on an application moved by respondent no.5 during the Tehsil Diwas has proceeded to cancel the mutation which was recorded in favour of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing and without even perusing the records.
The facts narrated in brief, are that the petitioner claims to be the legal heirs of Bhumidhari of Smt. Ramrati, who executed a will on 22.1.1995 in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance to the said will, the petitioner filed a Suit No.372 before the Tehsildar, Meerut seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records. The said application filed by the petitioner for mutating his name in the revenue records stood allowed on 23.9.2011. It is further stated that the respondent no.5 had in fact filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 23.9.2011 however, the same was rejected by the Tehsildar on 1.7.2013 and the counsel for the petitioner informs that an appeal filed against the order dated 1.7.2013 has also been dismissed in default. Thereafter the respondent no.5 moved an application before the Tehsildar alleging that the mutation carried out in favour of the petitioner is based upon the forged will and prayed that the same may be recalled. The Tehsildar vide his order dated
21.10.2013 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner therein recorded that the will in favour of the petitioner prima-facie appears to be suspicious and proceeded to pass an order restraining any further steps to be taken in pursuance to the order dated 23.9.2011.
The petitioner aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the present petition and has argued that the will in favour of the petitioner was registered, the respondent no.5 had filed a recall application which was dismissed and in fact even preferred an appeal which he did not argue and it was also dismissed and in that event the application filed by the respondent no.5 was not even maintainable and in any event, it was incumbent upon the Tehsildar to have heard the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order.
I have perused the impugned order which also reveals that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Tehsildar.
The respondent no.5 has filed a counter affidavit and has tried to justify the order passed by the Tehsildar. However, there is no denial to the fact that no notice was served to the petitioner prior to the order dated 21.10.2013 being passed.
This being the short controversy, I am inclined to allow the writ petition only on the ground that a notice of hearing ought to have issued by the Tehsildar prior to passing any order that too an order which affects the civil rights of the petitioner. It is well settled that any order which effects the civil rights of a person should not be passed without observing principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors, 2015 (8) SCC 519 , has categorically
laid down that even if the statute is silent on the observance of the principles of natural justice, it is incumbent upon the authorities concerned to observe the principles of natural justice prior to passing any order, more so, which effect the rights of the parties.
In the present case the mutation was carried out in accordance with law and the respondent no.5 having failed to seek a recall of the order and having abandoned his right of appeal, could not have filed the application as was done by the respondent no.5, the Tehsildar clearly allowed the said application even though it was not maintainable and that too without following principles of natural justice.
Considering the averments and the findings recorded herein above, I quash the order dated 21.10.2013 (Annexur-1 to the present writ petition).
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 11.3.2019 Hasnain
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tehsildar was required to observe principles of natural justice by granting an opportunity of hearing before passing an order cancelling a mutation without actually perusing the records.
Whether the respondent's application for recall of mutation was maintainable after filing an appeal against the initial dismissal of their recall application which was dismissed in default.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & OrsExplained¶12
M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors, 2015 (8) SCC 519 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vineet Kumar
State Of U.P.
Respondent No. 4
Respondent No. 5
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
