Allowed

Smt. Beena Tiwari and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024WRIC/7978/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging an order that struck out recorded tenure holder names and entered land as a Talab. The court held the order unsustainable as it was passed in violation of natural justice due to lack of prior notice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.08.2024 is quashed. The Assistant Collector/S.D.M. is at liberty to institute fresh proceedings after giving adequate hearing.

Smt. Beena Tiwari and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64602

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7978 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Beena Tiwari And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sriniwas Bajpai

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Upendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing State of U.P. and Shri Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel representing the respondent No.5 & 6- Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur.

¶7

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being decided finally at the admission stage.

¶8

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 20.08.2024 passed by First Class S.D.M. Sadar, Sitapur, whereby the land bearing Gata No.165 acre measuring 0.632 hectares situated in Village Tareenpur, Tehsil & District- Sitapur, whereby the names of recorded tenure holders of land bearing Gata No.165 has been directed to be struck out and the land has been recorded to be entered as a Talab in revenue records.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 210 against the impugned order and the petition is liable to be dismissed in view of availability of statutory remedy.

¶10

Replying to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that where the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the availability of alternative remedy will not be a bar to filing of a writ petition.

¶11

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner

¶12

Commercial Tax & 2 Ors .; Writ Tax no.1029 of 2021 decided on 04.03.2022, wherein this hon'ble Court stated that the following exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy have been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court :-

¶13

"(i) Where there is complete lack of jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take the action or to pass the order impugned.

¶14

(ii) Where vires of an Act, Rules, Notification or any of its provisions has been challenged.

¶15

(iii) Where an order prejudicial to the writ petitioner has been passed in total violation of principles of natural justice.

¶16

(iv) Where enforcement of any fundamental right is sought by the petitioner.

¶17

(v) Where procedure required for decision has not been adopted.

¶18

(vi) Where Tax is levied without authority of law.

¶19

(vii) Where decision is an abuse of process of law.

¶20

(viii) Where palpable injustice shall be caused to the petitioner, if he is forced to adopt remedies under the statute for enforcement of any fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

¶21

(ix) Where a decision or policy decision has already been taken by the Government rendering the remedy of appeal to be an empty formality or futile attempt.

¶22

(x) Where there is no factual dispute but merely a pure question of law or interpretation is involved.

¶23

(xi) Where show cause notice has been issued with preconceived or premeditated or closed mind."

¶24

A bare perusal of the impugned order indicates that prior to striking out name of the recorded tenure holder, no notice was issued to them and after their names has been struck off and the land has already been recorded to be entered as a Talab , the order states that the aggrieved persons may file objections against it within a week.

¶25

Calling for objections after passing an order striking out names of the recorded tenure holder, would not serve any purpose when the authority has already passed an order against them.

¶26

The purpose of giving an opportunity of hearing is that the party, which may be affected by the order proposed, may have an opportunity to present his case, which shall be taken into consideration by the authority before passing an order. Where the authority has already passed an order, the filing of objections against the order will be an empty formality and it will not serve any purpose.

¶27

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 is not sustainable in law as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the First Class S.D.M. Sadar, Sitapur in Case No.10372 of 2024 is hereby quashed .

¶29

The Assistant Collector First Class/S.D.M., Tehsil and DistrictSitapur will be at liberty to institute fresh proceedings for correcting the entries in the revenue records, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the affected persons.

¶30

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶31

Order Date :- 19.9.2024

¶32

-Amit K-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Beena Tiwari and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Beena Tiwari and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Krishna Dwivedi and Another Vs Indrasen Rawat

Danish Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Vedant Maurya @ Kumari Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Chetram and Others Vs Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 3 Others

Rasid Ali Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Lko. and 4 Others

Sant Bux Singh @ Santbaksa Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Lalganj, Pratapgarh and Others