Allowed

Smt Pooja Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2022WRIB/3081/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order expunging recorded tenure holders from revenue records. The Court held the order illegal for violating natural justice due to lack of notice and hearing, quashed it, and restored the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.01.2021 passed in Case No. 793 is quashed; matter restored to Consolidation Officer for disposed of after giving opportunity of hearing.

Smt Pooja Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3081 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt Pooja Gupta And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saroj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha/respondent no.7 and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 6.

¶6

Petitioners have invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the two separate orders dated 23rd December, 2020 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 793 of 2020-21 (State of U.P. Vs. Jwala Prasad and Others).

¶7

Grievance of the petitioners is that the Consolidation Officer has passed the impugned orders without issuing any notice to the recorded tenure holders and without affording them opportunity of hearing.

¶8

The averments made in the writ petition reveals that Plot No. 3504/01 was recorded in the name of Jwala Prasad & Bindvasnini S/o Roop Narain Lal, Abu Mohammad S/o of Hazi Mohammad, Allaudin S/o Mohd. Iliyas and Waqar Ahmad S/o Mohd. Abbarunisham, Jagdev, Umra, Jugura, Jai Shree, Jai Ram, Chivtani, Swarup and Manji. Against the aforesaid entries, consolidator has submitted report dated 21.10.2020 for expunging the names of recorded tenure holders from the revenue records.

¶9

On the basis of the aforesaid reports submitted by the Consolidator, report dated 13.01.2021 was prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and he referred the matter to the Consolidation Officer for passing appropriate order to expunge the name of recorded tenure holders from plot no. 3504/01, as mentioned above.

¶10

On the basis of the aforesaid report dated 13.01.2021 case has been registered under Section 9 A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act being Case No. 793. After receiving the aforesaid report, Consolidation Officer on same date i.e., 13.01.2021 has passed the order with respect to the plot no. 3504/01 directing expunging of the names of the recorded tenure holders from the revenue record, which is challenged in the instant writ petition.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that report dated 13.01.2021 submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was entertained on the same day i.e. 13.01.2021 by the Consolidation Officer and without issuing any notice to the recorded tenure holders and without affording them any opportunity of hearing, impugned order has been passed to expunge their names from the revenue record. It is further submitted that the names are recorded since long in the revenue record and the valuable rights are vested in the recorded tenure holders over the property in question, therefore, the name of the recorded tenure holders cannot be expunged in such a manner, and it can be done only in accordance with law. It is next

¶12

contended that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is illegal and suffers with infirmities, therefore, same shall be quashed.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the land in question is a Gaon Sabha property, which has illegally been got recorded in the name of the recorded tenure holders, therefore, in the matter of fraud there is no need for giving any opportunity of hearing to the recorded tenure holders.

¶14

On the pointed query made to the learned Standing Counsel with respect to the opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioners, he is not in a position to deny the fact that opportunity was not afforded to the recorded tenure holders. It is next contended that order passed by the Consolidation Officer is legal and sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, petition may be dismissed in limine.

¶15

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, I found nothing convincing that proper and effective opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the recorded tenure holders before expunging their name from the revenue record. Long standing entry made in the name of recorded tenure holders has illegally been expunged without giving any notice and without affording opportunity of hearing.

¶16

Record on board reveals that on the basis of the reports submitted by the Consolidator, Assistant Consolidation Officer has made report dated 13.01.2021 and referred the matter before the Consolidation Officer, who has acted hurriedly on the same day i.e. 13.01.2021 in accepting the recommendation made by Assistant Consolidation Officer to expunge the name of the recorded tenure holders from the plot in question. There is no indication of issuance of notice to the recorded tenure holders before passing the order dated 13.01.2021.

¶17

Report dated 13.01.2021 submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer reveals that it has been submitted in a printed proforma by filling blanks. In the penultimate paragraph of the said report, there is a reference of issuance of notice and parties were directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer. Perusal of the report reveals that everything has been concluded in a very mechanical manner on the same day i.e. 13th January, 2021, without adhering to the legal provisions. Sheer formalities have been completed in submission of reports, issuance of notices and passing the final orders by the Consolidation Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court that the identical matters came up before this Court for consideration in Civil Mic. Writ Petition i.e. Writ-B No. 561 of 2021 (makhanchu Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), Writ-B No. 575 of 2021 (Lautu Ram & Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), Writ-B No. 578 of 2021 (Arjun Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) and Writ-B No. 2000 of 2021 (Suresh Kumar & Another Vs. DDC & 3 Others). Aforesaid writ petitions were allowed on the same day considering the illegality in the impugned order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Copies of the said orders are annexed with the present petition. In view of the orders passed in the aforesaid petitions, counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant writ petition may also be allowed.

¶18

In view of the above, Court is of the considered view that the

¶19

Consolidation Officer has committed manifest error in passing the ex-parte order dated 13.01.2021, expunging the name of the recorded tenure holders that too without issuing any notice and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, which is violation of natural justice and fair play. There is no justification to expunge the long standing entry made in favour of the recorded tenure holders, which amounts to depriving them of their valuable legal rights over the property in question, which cannot be done without following the provisions of law.

¶20

Resultantly, the instant writ petition succeeds and allowed. Impugned order dated 13.01.2021 passed in Case No. 793, is hereby quashed.

¶21

Matter before the Consolidation Officer is restored, which was initiated on the basis of the report dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Parties are relegated before the Consolidation Officer to contest the matter and adduce their evidences in support of their case to protect their right and title over the property in question.

¶22

It is expected that above mentioned case, as pending before the Consolidation Officer, shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of five months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, by reasoned and speaking orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, without granting unnecessary adjournments. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer concerned on or before 5th December, 2022.

¶23

Order Date :- 18.11.2022 SS

¶24

Digitally signed by SURENDAR SINGH NARANG Date: 2022.11.18 16:34:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Pooja Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pooja Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atwar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Briksha Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Sangam Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 25 Others

Sita Ram Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Chandra Bhushan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Baljeet Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others