Remanded

Ram Adhar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2023WRIC/9822/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders dated 25.01.2019 and 28.11.2019 passed by revenue authorities regarding land rights adjudication. The court found the impugned orders were based solely on a 2000 revenue report, ignoring petitioner's documentary evidence. The matter was remitted for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 25.01.2019 and 28.11.2019 set aside; matter remitted to respondent no.2 for fresh decision within six months.

Ram Adhar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184235

¶2

Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9822 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ram Adhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhu Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Prakhar Tandon who put his appearance upon the instructions of the Legal Aid Services, High Court, Allahabad for the petitioner and Shri Raj Kumar Singh for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.

¶5

The present petition has been instituted for challenging the orders dated 25.1.2019 passed by respondent no.3 and 28.11.2019 passed by respondent no.2 in Case No. 04124 of 2018 (Ram Adhar vs. Gaon Sabha) under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and in Revision No.254/AC201915000001260 of 2018-19 (Ram Adhar vs. Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Phoolpur, Azamgarh) respectively. While assailing the order passed by respondent no.3, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire adjudication has been made by respondent no.3 which culminated into order dated 25.1.2019 is only on the basis of report dated 29.12.2000 submitted by the Revenue Inspector and no material consideration has been given to the documents appended by the petitioner which were the basis of the argument for seeking their rights over plot no.445M measuring 0.300 hectare, which was earlier recorded against the name of the petitioner as Bhoomidhar with non-transferable rights.

¶6

While preferring the revision against the order dated 25.1.2019 before the respondent no.2 the same was also adjudicated only on the basis of the findings given by the respondent no.3 over the report submitted by the concerned revenue authority but at no point of time the fact regarding possession of the petitioner apprised in shape of documentary evidences has ever been discussed.

¶7

Per contra, learned standing counsel vehemently

¶8

opposed the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stand taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the counter afÏdavit preferred on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and justified both the orders which has been put under challenge in the instant writ petition by way of assessing the reports submitted by Naib Tehsildar, Phoolpur dated 13.1.2023 and copy of the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Phoolpur on 17.12.2018, although the reliance has been made over the report which has been appended alongwith the counter afÏdavit, but so far as regarding the report which has been mentioned in the order dated 25.1.2019 i.e, report dated 29.12.2000 which has been solely relied upon by the respondent no.3, has not been apprised at the time of filing the counter afÏdavit. No specific denial with regard to nonconsideration of the material document which has been appended during pendency of the proceeding under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 preferred by the petitioner, has been discussed/denied in the counter afÏdavit.

¶9

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that the entire adjudication whatsoever has been made by respondent nos. 2 and 3, is only on the basis of the certain report submitted by the concerned Revenue authorities and no credence has ever been given to the submission made by petitioner, which apparently shows that the material fact has not been considered while passing the impugned orders.

¶10

Orders dated 25.01.2019 and 28.11.2019 passed by responding authority nos.3 and 2 respectively are hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 for deciding afresh.

¶11

Writ petition stands allowed according. Aforementioned exercise shall be carried out by respondent no.3 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶12

Order Date :- 22.9.2023/Rakesh

¶13

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

Ram Adhar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Adhar v. State of U.P. and 4 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

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

Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs Ram Vriksha Yadav

Chandrahas Ramdayal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sayed Sayeed Shah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kadhora Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Asphak Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others