Allowed

Matloob Hussain Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024WRIC/7383/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition regarding exchange of land order passed in petitioner's favor. Court allowed petition solely on ground that impugned order was passed without notice to petitioner, violating natural justice, and restored recall application status quo ante.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.02.2023 set aside; recall application restored for hearing with adequate opportunity to petitioner.

Matloob Hussain Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59837

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7383 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Matloob Hussain Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharm Raj Mishra,Virendra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondent.

¶8

This Court on 29.08.2024 had passed the following order, which read as under:-

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Pankaj Gupta learned counsel has received notice on behalf of respondent no.5.

¶10

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order of exchange was passed in favour of the petitioner on 02.04.2012. Against that said order, an application for recall purporting to the under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was moved by the State as well as Gaon Sabha together. A copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure no.6 to the petition.

¶11

It is further contention of the petitioner that neither any notice was issued to him nor served and the order of exchange dated 02.04.2012 was allowed exparte without even condoning the delay issuing notice of the petitioner and without discussing the cause shown.

¶12

Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha as well State counsel submit that they do not have any instructions. Let specific instructions be placed before the Court as to on the application dated 03.02.2023, when were the notice issued to the petitioner, for which date, how they were served and what were the dates along with the record of Restoration case no.1387 of 2023.

¶13

As prayed, put up on 31.08.2024 as fresh."

¶14

In furtherance of the said order, learned standing counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions under the signatures of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District Gonda dated 30.08.2024 for perusal of the Court which is taken on record.

¶15

In light of the controversy involved in the instant petition, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶16

The contention of the petitioner is that on an application moved by the petitioner, an order of exchange of land was passed in favour of the petitioner on 02.04.2012. Against the said order, an application for recall was moved by the State as well as

¶17

Goan Sabha. However, the contention is that there was no notice issued or served on the petitioner as merely on the asking of the State and the Gaon Sabha, the said application for recall was allowed and then the application for the petitioner for recall of the same was dismissed.

¶18

It is in the aforesaid context, the Court had required the learned standing counsel to seek specific instructions and inform as to whether the order dated 02.04.2012 was passed after noticing the petitioner.

¶19

As per the instructions, the notice was not issued or served on the petitioner and the delay in filing the same was also not specifically condoned and by means of the order dated 23.02.2023, the order passed in favour of the petitioner dated 02.04.2012 was set aside.

¶20

Since, it is not disputed that the petitioner was not given any notice and the order impugned dated 23.02.2023 has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and needless to say that is in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice, hence, on this score alone, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 23.02.2023 is set aside. The recall application shall stand restored on the board of the respondent No.2. The petitioner shall have adequate opportunity of filing his response both to the cause of delay as well as on merits to the said application for recall moved by the State and the Gaon Sabha. The Court after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, shall pass afresh orders thereon taking note of the respective contentions made by the parties and decide the same by a reasoned and a speaking order.

¶21

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits which shall be considered by the Court concerned and the writ petition has been allowed solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶22

It is also made clear that all the pleas which are available to the parties as per law shall be available to them to be raised before the Court concerned.

¶23

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed . No order as to costs.

¶24

Order Date :- 31.8.2024 Rakesh/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Matloob Hussain Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matloob Hussain Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jagdish Prasad and 2 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer and 4 Others

Vinay Singh Vs the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Member and Others

Vijay Bahadur Srivastava Vs Addl. Commissioner Lko and 14 Others

Manoj Rao and Another vs Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Its Secretary and Others

Wahid Ali and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and 3 Others

Seetal Dei @ Guna vs Tehsildar, Sirauli Gauspur, Barabanki and Others