Allowed

Smt. Renu Singh and Another v. Chairman Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2024WRIB/226/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition to quash an order transferring a land dispute case under Section 212 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, due to a violation of natural justice as no notice was issued to the petitioner before the decision was made ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.07.2023 under Section 212 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is quashed. Respondent directed to decide matter afresh after issuing notice and hearing.

Smt. Renu Singh and Another vs Chairman… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31963

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 226 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Renu Singh And Another Respondent :- Chairman Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Case has been called in the revised list.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 passed by respondent no. 1/Chairman of Board of Revenue, U.P Luckow in transfer application registered as Case No. TA/1761/2023/Amethi, Computerized Case No. R20230471001761 (Bajrang Bahadur Singh and others vs. Renu Singh) filed under Section 212 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred as Code, 2006).

¶8

This Court after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner had passed an order dated 07.03.2024 which is quoted herein below:-

¶9

"For the purposes of entertaining the present petition and granting interim protection, petitioners' counsel stated that the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice, as is apparent from the impugned dated 11.07.2023 itself that only counsel for the applicant(s), opposite parties herein, and Standing counsel Sri Pratap Singh were heard while passing the same. He further submitted that even no notice was issued to the petitioners herein, who were impleaded as opposite parties in the application seeking transfer aforesaid.

¶10

Elaborating the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the application for transfer in issue was taken upon for the first time on 11.07.2023 and on the same day, it was disposed of by the impugned order and the case pending before Naib Tehsildar, Jaamo, Tehsil- Gauriganj, District- Amethi has been transferred to revenue court of Tehsildar, Gauriganj, District- Amethi.

¶11

He also stated that till date, the paper book of the case is available in the revenue court of Niab Tehsildar, Jaamo, Tehsil- Gauriganj, DistrictAmethi. In this regard, reference has been made to Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 29.02.2024.

¶12

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid particularly that the application for transfer was listed on 11.7.2023 and on the same day, the impugned order was passed, this Court finds that the matter requires consideration.

¶13

Accordingly, issue notice to the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Steps in this regard be taken within 7 working days.

¶14

List/put up this case as fresh on 08.04.2024.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, the implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 shall remain stayed."

¶16

As per the service report dated 18.04.2024, service upon respondents is sufficient but no one has filed any vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents nor appeared at the time of hearing of the case. The impugned order dated 11.07.2023 passed by respondent no. 1 under Section 212 of the Code, 2006 on the transfer application on behalf of the respondents was allowed on the very same day of filing the application without issuing either notice to the petitioners or providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The impugned order reveals that the file was taken up, case was called, learned counsel on behalf of the complainant is present and for the respondents, the State counsel is present and opposed the order for transfer of the case.

¶17

Learned State Counsel has very fairly submitted that the order has been passed on the very same date of moving of an application i.e. 11.07.2023 under Section 212 of the Code, 2006 only after hearing learned counsel for applicant and the State Counsel and order reveals that no notice was issued against the petitioner.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the impugned order, it is found that the application under Section 212 has been heard and decided exparte without issuing any notice to the petitioners who are the main contesting party in the case, the petitioners are the persons who have filed the case before the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the Code, 2006. It is a settled principle of law that no one shall be left unheard and opportunity must be given to the person who would be affected by the order.

¶19

In the present case under Section 34 of the Code, 2006, case pending before the Tehsildar has been transferred on the application of the respondents on the very same day of filing of the application under Section 212 of the Code, 2006. The order speaks that prior to the passing of the order no notice was issued and served upon the petitioners and only after hearing learned counsel for the applicant i.e the present respondents, in the writ petition who have not put in appearance despite the report of sufficient service by the office of this Court and the learned State Counsel has transferred the matter on the basis of allegation from one place to another place. The order has been passed in contravention of principles of natural justice.

¶20

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed.

¶21

The impugned order dated 11.07.2023 is hereby quashed.

¶22

Respondent no. 1 is directed to decide the matter

¶23

afresh in accordance with law, after issuing notice and hearing the petitioner and other parties concerned.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.4.2024 DiVYa

¶25

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Renu Singh and Another v. Chairman Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Renu Singh and Another v. Chairman Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Mamta Gautam Vs Principal Secy.Governor Sectt. Lucknow and Ors.

Phoolmati Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Child Development and Nutrition Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Saiyada Khatoon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical/Health Lko. and 4 Others

Lallan Bharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mahendra Kumar Tripathi Pno.No. 902590207 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Km. Ruchi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others