Disposed

Akhtar v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2023WRIC/6361/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an administrative notice seeking the petitioner's say regarding agricultural land records. The court observed that pending judicial revision proceedings did not bar the initial notice but directed the officer to examine the defense. It set a time-frame for the Board of Revenue to decide the pending revision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to produce evidence; Sub-Divisional Officer to examine defense considering pendency; Board of Revenue to decide revision within four months.

Akhtar Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6361 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Akhtar

¶4

Respondent :- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avadh Pratap Singh Shishodia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

Heard Shri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Avadh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

By previous order of this Court dated 24.02.2023, instructions were called from the learned Standing Counsel. Instructions have been placed before the Court which are taken on record.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice dated 02.01.2023 whereby the Sub Divisional OfficerDhaulana, District-Hapur while entertaining the application moved by one Deepak S/o Brahmajeet Singh on administrative side has called upon the petitioner to make his say in the matter on 05.01.2023 alongwith evidence. The petitioner has already submitted a reply against said notice, a copy whereof has been annexed as 'Annexure No.7 ' to the writ petition.

¶9

The contention of learned Senior Counsel is that an agricultural lease was granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1984 and his name was mutated in the revenue records on the basis of the same. Thereafter, proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act-1901 (in short the 'Act-1901') were initiated, in which, by order dated 03.08.1998, the name of the petitioner was expunged from the revenue records. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner concerned. The Additional Commissioner, Meerut, Division-Meerut by order dated 04.07.2020 allowed the revision setting aside the order dated 03.08.1998 and directing the file to be consigned to records. The Additional Commissioner has observed in the aforesaid order that proper procedure for expunging the entry in the name of the petitioner was not followed and the petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing. It was also observed that it would be in the interest of justice that in relation to the matter, detailed inquiry be conducted and, in case, expunction of entry in the name of any person is proposed, he should be provided an opportunity of

¶10

hearing and, thereafter, if it is found that, infact, any allotment/entry was made without there being any order, appropriate decision be taken in the matter, in accordance with law. The aforesaid order was challenged by one Atul Sharma before the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court-1,Meerut, in the form of Revision No.00293 of 2021 (Atul Sharma v. Akhtar), in which, an interim order was passed on 15.03.2022 staying the orders dated 04.07.2020 and 03.08.1998 summoning the record of the sub-ordinate court.

¶11

The submission of learned Senior Counsel is that once judicial order has been passed in favour of the petitioner which has not been set aside, parallel proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice cannot be allowed to be held on administrative side. He further submits that there is a complete procedure in the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 (in short 'the Code-2006') for expunction of entries and also for cancellation of lease, however, the said procedure has not been followed.

¶12

Per contra , learned Standing Counsel, in support of the instructions placed before this Court, submits that there is no dispute about the fact that the aforesaid proceedings on judicial side were held, however, since the Additional Commissioner had directed for holding of inquiry, notice impugned in the present petition has rightly been issued to the petitioner calling upon him to make his defense in the matter and, as of now, no decision has been taken nor any order has been passed against the interest of the petitioner. Pendency of the aforesaid revision before the Board of Revenue has also been admitted by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that though proceedings on judicial side commenced under Sections 33/39 of the Act-1901 and though the matter is still pending before the Board of Revenue, irrespective of the interim order granted in revisions or its extension or non-extension further, once the Additional Commissioner had directed for holding of inquiry into the matter, no procedural error is found in the impugned notice dated 02.01.2023. However, at the same time, it is observed that since the Code-2006 is a complete Code in itself, in which, proceedings for expunction of entries as also for cancellation of lease can be held and even during the course of such proceedings, inquiries can be directed and reports can be called for from the concerned Courts/Offices/Officials/Revenue Authorities, the impact of the judicial proceedings has a material bearing on the proceedings which are sought to be initiated on the basis of the impugned notice dated 02.01.2023.

¶14

As on today, there are no proceedings under the Code-2006 except, notice on administrative side which has been impugned in the present petition.

¶15

Since the petitioner has already submitted a reply against the notice, he may also produce evidence in support of his defense after service of copy of complaint upon him on the basis of which, the notice impugned has been issued.

¶16

The Sub Divisional Officer shall examine the defense of the petitioner and also consider the evidence of the petitioner regarding validity of proceedings on administrative side in the light of the pendency of matter before the Board of Revenue as well as non-institution of proceedings under the Code-2006. At the same time, as held by the Additional Commissioner, recourse to procedure of law can be taken by any of the parties, it is still open for the parties/institutions on whose instance lawful proceedings can be held. In case, any such proceedings are held, the petitioner shall be provided full opportunity of hearing and no order adverse to him shall be passed unless a final order is passed in such proceedings.

¶17

It is open for the Board of Revenue to decide the pending Revision No.00293 of 2021 (Atul Sharma v. Akhtar), after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within a period of four months .

¶18

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.5.2023 Jyotsana

¶20

Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhtar v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhtar v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramayan Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Banshi Singh and Anr. Vs Addl. Commissioner Moradabad and Ors.

Smt.Subhawati Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Sri Bhagwandas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ramashish Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others