Gulam Mohammad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9615

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1366 of 2025

Petitioner :- Gulam Mohammad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Nafees,Pawan Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.

¶7

In view of the consensus arrived at between the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at the admission stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been dismissed, as a consequence, the order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dated 23.10.2018 has been affirmed.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner is the recorded owner of Plot No. 919. Adjacent to the plot of the petitioners is the plot No. 918 which is recorded as Chak Road.

¶10

It is urged that the petitioners had already initiated proceedings for correction of map in the year 2016. In the said proceedings, the reports were filed by the Lekhpal which clearly indicated that the area of the petitioners has been shown as deficit whereas plot nos. 917 and 922 had excess area.

¶11

It is urged that while the aforesaid proceedings were pending, the State initiated proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and it is urged that despite bringing on record the aforesaid facts, it was not taken note of which led the respondent no. 3 to pass the order dated 23.10.2018.

¶12

It is further submitted that the petitioners moved an application for recall that the relevant facts are not taken note of including

¶13

the reports relating to the case initiated by the petitioners for correction of map which had come to be allowed on merits vide order dated 27th October, 2022.

¶14

It is urged that the said court did not take note of the application for recall which was rejected. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been confirmed.

¶15

It is further pointed out that in the memo of appeal, the petitioner had raised substantial grounds including the aforesaid fact but the same has not been considered rather it has been ignored and the order passed under Section 67 of the Code of 2006.

¶16

It is urged that apart from the fact that the orders passed by the Competent Court for correction of map were not noticed but this fact apart, even there was no compliance of the guidelines as laid down by this Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2022 SCC Online All 829.

¶17

It is urged that from bare perusal of the impugned orders, it would indicate that there is no reference that the Lekhpal had entered into the witness box to prove his report and in the aforesaid circumstances, the orders impugned cannot be sustained.

¶18

The learned Standing Counsel as well as the counsel for the Gaon Sabha, both have submitted that it is no doubt true that the orders passed by the Court as well as the report in the proceedings under map correction have not been considered and it is also not clear whether the Lekhpal entered into the witness box to lead evidence and in such circumstances, it would be appropriate that the matter may be reconsidered on merits.

¶19

Having considered the aforesaid and from the perusal of the material on record, it could not be disputed that the petitioner had already initiated proceedings for correction of map in the year 2016 which finally came to be allowed in his favour on 27th October, 2022. The said order had been passed while the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were pending and this was not even taken note of once the petitioners had moved an application for recall.

¶20

The petitioners, in their memo of appeal had raised when the aforesaid substantive grounds but the same was not considered nor dealt with by the Appellate Court and it appears that the orders passed by the Appellate Authority are in mechanical exercise of power.

¶21

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the clear view that the impugned order dated 17.09.2024, 23.10.2018 and 29.01.2024 cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside.

¶22

The matter shall stand restored on the board of the respondent no. 3 where the parties shall appear on 03rd March, 2025. The Authorities shall after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties including making a fresh inspection with due intimation to the petitioners shall decide the proceedings afresh preferably within a period of two months from the date, the parties appear before the respondent no. 3.

¶23

It is made clear that in case if the petitioner does not cooperate in early hearing and participating in the inspection, it will be open for the Authorities to proceed in his absence.

¶24

It is further provided that the court concerned shall take note of the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Rishipal (Supra) and decide the matter afresh taking note of the orders passed in map correction proceedings.

¶25

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Authority concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law in light of the aforesaid observations.

¶26

With the aforesaid the petition shall stands allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Asheesh/-

¶28

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

Gulam Mohammad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Mohammad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Pal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Ohers

Israr Ahmad Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Alapur, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Ram Charan Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Ramchander and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Dalbir Singh Vs the Court of Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Colonelganj, Gonda and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs Deputy Director Consolidation Hardoi and 6 Others