Huma Hussain v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.K.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey on behalf of respondents and Sri D.K.Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. This is the second round of litigation.

3. Petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.30424 of 2023 which was disposed of by a following order dated

6.9.2023: " 1. Heard Shri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This case has some special features and, therefore, despite the fact that the writ petition is reported to be beyond time by 1274 days, the Court has proceeded to consider the issue in light of alternative prayer made by the petitioner in relation to a decision to be taken by the Joint Director of Education (Secondary) on a recall application filed by the petitioner.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that under the registered document dated 14.9.1955 termed as a lease-deed (although, certain other features stand reflected from perusal of the document), right to manage the property owned by the petitioner's father was conferred upon one Syed Akhtar Hussain subject to certain conditions and one of the conditions was in case the school building stands demolished, the property shall revert back to the petitioner's father. It is contended that certain institution remained functional on the land in question, but later on, surreptitiously, an order dated 4.12.2019 was obtained by the private respondents from the Joint Director of Education, whereby permission to 2 WRIC No. 24033 of 2025 sell half of the land was granted by the Joint Director of Education and pursuant to the permission so granted, certain sale-deeds were executed by the respondents.

4. Various infirmities in the sale have been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner including valuation of the property as well as sale consideration etc. and it is also argued that certain proceedings of mutation etc. were held and at one point of time, a suit under Section 229-B of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was filed and sought to be decided in terms of a compromise, however, the compromise was turned down and dismissed by the court concerned and, later on, a civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale-deed has also been filed by the petitioner, which is pending before the civil court. It has further been argued that since sale has been made in violation of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974, and the permission dated 4.12.2019 was obtained keeping the petitioner in dark and in ex parte manner, the officer who had granted the permission is empowered to recall the order and take action as contemplated under the Act itself or otherwise.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid background of facts pressed for a direction upon respondent No.2-Joint Director of Education (Secondary) Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, to consider the recall application dated 22.2.2023, which is said to be supported by annexures running into 233 pages.

6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that sale-deeds have already been executed pursuant to the permission granted and the petitioner has availed remedy by filing civil suit, which is admittedly pending, it would be a futile exercise to issue a direction upon Joint Director of Education (Secondary) and even if the order dated 4.12.2019 is recalled for any reason, the same would not ipso facto render the sale-deeds as null and void unless the civil court, for the reasons stated in the suit, adjudges the validity of the sale deeds.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the provisions of Act, 1974 and also the nature of order dated 4.12.2019 challenged by means of this writ petition, the Court is not inclined to set aside the order dated 4.12.2019 after a period of four years, particularly, when various other proceedings have already been held thereafter. Therefore, the prayer to quash the order dated 4.12.2019 is barred by laches and refused, but at the same time, it is also to be noted that in case, any order has been passed by any judicial or quasi judicial authority in ignorance of certain material documents and without providing any opportunity to a person, who may have a locus in the case, particularly as 3 WRIC No. 24033 of 2025 per the soul of the statute, the authority has inherent power to recall the order so passed, irrespective of the fact, as to what would be the effect of proceedings of recall on any proceedings held subsequent to passing of the order.

8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no right of ownership vested in the private respondents and, even otherwise, sale made by them being contrary to the document of 14.9.1955 and against the provisions of Act, 1974, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2-Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, to take up the recall application dated 22.2.2023 and, after issuing notice to respondent Nos.6 & 7, namely, Jagdish Mishra and Manju Mishra, whose complete description shall be provided by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, he shall decide the recall application within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before respondent No.2 after providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the said parties too and permitting them to file their representations and objections, etc."

4. Order dated 6.9.2023 was challenged by the respondents Committee of Management Peerpur Sarvajanik Inter College & Anr, by way of a Special Appeal Defective No.848 of 2023, which was dismissed vide order dated

11.1.2024. Said order is reproduced hereinafter: "1. Delay in filing of the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing of appeal is condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2023, passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ-C No.30424 of 2023. By the order under challenge, learned Single Judge has directed the concerned Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, to consider the recall application filed by the respondent-petitioner, after issuing notices to the transferee of the land, and to take appropriate decision on the recall application.

3. The respondent-petitioner has filed the writ petition stating that her father was the owner of certain land and had leased it to the educational institution for the purposes of arranging resources for running of the institution. This land has now been transferred by the appellant with which the respondent- petitioner felt aggrieved. The permission granted by the Joint Director of Education allowing transfer of such land is thus sought to be recalled.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the transfer deed has 4 WRIC No. 24033 of 2025 been executed by the institution, the permission granted by the Director stood exhausted, and the filing of recall application is misconceived. It is also urged that petitioner has already filed a suit for cancellation of such transfer deed, where all such issues can be examined. It is, therefore, submitted that the permission granted by learned Single Judge to transfer the land cannot be challenged, nor any direction can be issued for consideration of such recall application.

5. On behalf of respondent-petitioner, it is stated that the permission has been obtained based upon misrepresentation and fraud, and therefore, such aspect of the matter is required to be examined by the Joint Director.

6. In the facts of the present case, it is apparent that permission for transfer was granted by the Joint Director of Education, on 4.12.2019, based upon the disclosure of facts by the appellant institution to the concerned authority. The respondent-petitioner alleges that facts have been misrepresented and the conditions on which the land was given to the institution have not been taken note of by the Joint Director concerned. Such issues of fact alone have been directed to be examined by learned Single Judge.

7. Considering the nature of order, which has been passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, at this stage. Since the transfer of immovable property has already taken place by way of registered sale deed, such transfer can only be nullified by a decree passed by the competent civil court. The decision of Joint Director of Education can at best be in aid of and subject to the final determination to be made by the civil court. The factual exercise, which is to be undertaken by the concerned educational authority would, therefore, cause no prejudice to the appellant, since it would remain open to examination by the civil court.

8. Special appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed."

5. In the above background, petitioner submitted a recall application before the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh to recall the order dated

4.12.2019, whereby the permission to sale was granted to the respondent, Committee of Management was rejected vide order dated 21.4.2025, Relevant part of said order is mentioned hereinafter: "सभी प्षों ्षारा उपलब्ध कराये गये िलिखत अिभकथनों एवं प्ऴाविलयों में उपलब्ध साष्यों के परी्षणोपरान्त पाया गया िकः- 1. ्ऺबन्ध सिमित, पीरपुर सावर्जिनक इण्टर कालेज, िम्तूपुर आजमगढ़ ्षारा कोई तथ्यगोपन करके संयु्व िश्षा िनदेशक, आजमगढ़ मण्डल, आजमगढ़ के आदेश िदनांक 04.12.2019 ्ऺाप्त नहीं िकया गया। संयु्व िश्षा िनदेशक, आजमगढ़ मण्डल, आजमगढ़ का आदेश िदनांक 5 WRIC No. 24033 of 2025

04.12.2019 वास्तिवक तथ्यों पर आधािरत है। 2. ्ऺाभूत भू-सम्पि्त का अन्तरण/ हस्तान्तरण ्ऺबन्ध सिमित ्षारा ्िि्वगत िहत के िलए ्ऺयोग करने सम्बन्धी कोई साष्य उपलब्ध नहीं है। 3. ्ऺबन्ध सिमित ्षारा 9 हेक्टेयर 950 एयर का 50 ्ऺितशत रूपये 2000000.00 (रूपये बीस लाख मा्ऴ) में बेचकर ्ऺाप्त धनरािश को खाते संख्या: 111413020000015 में िजला िव्यालय िनरी्षक, के नाम से प्लेज िकया गया है और उससे ्ऺाप्त ब्याज का उपभोग भवन िनमार्ण एवं मरम्मत आिद में िकया गया है। 4. याची ्शीमती हुमा हुसैन ्षारा ्ऺबन्ध सिमित ने संदान िनिध की कु ल भूिम 09 हेक्टेयर 950 एयर का आधा का िव्वय से ्ऺाप्त रूपया 22,28,200.00 की समस्त धनरािश इस कायार्लय के आदेश िदनांकः 04.12.2019 की शतर् संख्या-2 के अनुसार िजला िव्यालय िनरी्षक, आजमगढ़ के पद नाम से बन्धक न करके उ्व शतर् का उल्लंघन करते हुए के वल रूपये 20,00,000.00 ही िजला िव्यालय िनरी्षक, आजमगढ़ के पदनाम से बैंक में एफ०डी० के रूप में जमा िकये जाने के कारण आपकी ्ऺबन्ध सिमित 2,28,200.00 रूपये के गबन का आरोप लगाया परन्तु याची ्षारा भूिम रूपया 22,28,200.00 में बेचे जाने के सम्बन्ध में कोई साष्य उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया। साष्य के अभाव में यें आरोप स्वीकार नहीं िकया जा सकता है। तत्कालीन संयु्व िश्षा िनदेशक, आजमगढ़ मण्डल के उपरो्व आदेश िदनांकः 04.12.2019 को री-काल िकए जाने हेतु मा० उच्च न्यायालय, उ०्ऺ० इलाहाबाद में योिजत यािचका संख्या -30424/2023 हुमा हुसैन बनाम उ०्ऺ० राज्य व 06 अन्य में पािरत आदेश िदनांकः 06.09.2023 िजसमें मा० न्यायालय ने सभी सम्बिन्धत प्षों को सुनकर री-काल अप्लीके शन को 06 माह में िनस्तािरत करने का आदेश िदया है, के िवरू्ध मा० उच्च न्यायालय में योिजत िवशेष अपील िडफे िक्टव संख्या- 848/2023 ्ऺबन्ध सिमित, पीरपुर सावर्जिनक इण्टर कालेज व अन्य बनाम हुमा हुसैन व 5 अन्य को मा० न्यायालय के आदेश िदनांक 11.01.2024 ्षारा खािरज करते हुए मा० न्यायालय ने अपने आदेश के ्ऺस्तर -7 में िनम्नवत उल्लेख िकया हैः- 7. Considering the nature of order, which has been passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, at this stage. Since the transfer of immovable property has already taken place by way of registered sale deed, such transfer can only be nullified by a decree passed by the competent civil court. The decision of Joint Director of Education can at best be in aid of and subject to the final determination to be made by the civil court. The factual exercise, which is to be undertaken by the concerned educational authority would, therefore, cause no prejudice to the appellant, since it would remain open to examination by the civil court. मा० न्यायालय ने अपने आदेश के ्ऺस्तर- 7 में स्प्ि रूप से उल्लेख िकया है िक ्ऺश्नगत अचल सम्पि्त का रिजस्टडर् सेल डीड के माध्यम से पहले ही स्थानान्तरण सम्पन्न हो चुका है, िजसे के वल मा० न्यायालय िसिवल कोटर् के िड्वी के आधार पर ही शून्य घोिषत िकया जा सकता है। इसके अितिर्व संस्था ्ऺबन्धक ने अपने िलिखत अिभकथन िदनांक 20.07.2024 के ्ऺस्तर -8 में उल्लेख िकया है िक उभय प्षों ्षारा मा० न्यायालय िसिवल कोटर्, अम्बेडकर नगर में वषर् 2022 में इस भूिम स्थानान्तरण को लेकर पहले से ही कु ल 06 वाद योिजत िकए गए है, जो मा० न्यायालय िसिवल कोटर् अम्बेडकर नगर के सम्ष अ्यतन िवचाराधीन है तथा वतर्मान में उभय प्षों के पास स्षम मा० न्यायालय का कोई िड्वी/ आदेश उपलब्ध नही है। WRIC No. 24033 of 2025 6 िनणर्य तत्कालीन संयु्व िश्षा िनदेशक, आजमगढ़ मण्डल, आजमगढ़ के भू-स्थानान्तरण अनुमित आदेश िदनांकः 04.12.2019 उ्तर ्ऺदेश शैि्षक संस्थाएँ (अिस्तयों के अप्िय का िनवारण) अिधिनयम -1974, उ०्ऺ० अिधिनयम सं० 3 सं० 1975 में िदये गये ्ऺािवधानों एवं वास्तिवक तथ्यों के आधार पर ्ऺदान िकया गया है तथा आदेश में लगाये गये ्ऺितबन्धों का ्ऺबन्ध सिमित ्षारा उल्लंघन सम्बिन्धत कोई साष्य उपलब्ध नहीं है तथा भूिम अन्तरण / हस्तान्तरण सम्बिन्धत वाद मा० न्यायायलय, िसिवल कोटर् अम्बेडकर नगर में िवचाराधीन होने के कारण संयु्व िश्षा िनदेशक , आजमगढ़ मण्डल, आजमगढ के आदेश िदनांकः 04.12.2019 को िरकाल करने का कोई औिचत्य ्ऺतीत नहीं बनता है। मा० उच्च न्यायालय में योिजत िवशेष अपील िडफे िक्टव संख्या -848/ 2023 ्ऺवन्ध सिमित, पीरपुर सावर्जिनक इण्टर कालेज व अन्य बनाम हुमा हुसैन व 05 अन्य में पािरत आदेश िदनांकः 11.01.2024 के अनुपालन में एतद्षारा याची के िरकाल एप्लीके शन िदनांक: 22.02.2023 को अस्वीकार करते एत्द्षारा ्ऺकरण का िनस्तारण िकया जाता है।"

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Division Bench of this Court after taking note of above referred facts that civil suits are also pending before the competent Court, still a direction to consider the Recall Application was upheld. However, by impugned order Recall Application was rejected on the same ground that Civil Suits were pending before the competent Court for cancellation of sale deed and as such an illegality was committed.

7. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Committee of Management submitted that permission to grant sale vide order dated

4.12.2019 has already been executed and sale deed has been effected and matter is now seized with the competent Civil Court wherein all relevant issues raised could be considered for consideration and be decided accordingly. He further submitted that even if the permission is set-aside, without setting aside the sale deed, no effective relief could be granted to the petitioner.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. In present case, the petitioner has claimed that his father by way of a registered sale deed dated 13.5.1955 has leased out land in question to the respondent registered Society and said Society after withholding certain relevant facts has sought permission to sell the said land which is situated at a distance of about (30 Kms) from the College and the concerned respondent 7 WRIC No. 24033 of 2025 has granted permission to sell the said land vide order dated 4.12.2019 taking note that Committee of Management has adopted a proposal to sell out the said land on a ground that it was situated about 30 Kms away from the College and quite big part of it was encroached and it was not effectively utilized for purpose of the Committee.

10. It would be a question for consideration as to whether petitioner has a locus to file such a recall application or not, since he has to place his case that he has still a right over the said land and for that he ought to have challenged the permission granted on 4.12.2019, whereby in accordance with law.

11. So far as recall application is concerned, there no provision is placed on record which provides specific provision to recall an order passed by the authority concerned.

12. In the above background since it is not under much dispute that petitioner himself has filed a Civil Suit for cancellation of sale deed, though copy of it is not placed on record, but in all probability a ground must have been taken that permission was contrary to law and in such circumstances, the best forum is the Civil Court to decide the said issue after exchange of pleadings, statement and cross-examination of witnesses.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances when there are legal impediments and there is no specific provision to recall the order of granting permission to sell the land in question and it would create an ambiguity if in a circumstances application for recall is allowed and suit for cancellation of sale deed filed by the petitioner gets dismissed, therefore, in order to avoid any ambiguity also, no reason exist to interfere the impugned order.

14. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. October 16, 2025 SB (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.K.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey on behalf of respondents and Sri D.K.Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. This is the second round of litigation.

3. Petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.30424 of 2023 which was disposed of by a following order dated

6.9.2023: " 1. Heard Shri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This case has some special features and, therefore, despite the fact that the writ petition is reported to be beyond time by 1274 days, the Court has proceeded to consider the issue in light of alternative prayer made by the petitioner in relation to a decision to be taken by the Joint Director of Education (Secondary) on a recall application filed by the petitioner.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that under the registered document dated 14.9.1955 termed as a lease-deed (although, certain other features stand reflected from perusal of the document), right to manage the property owned by the petitioner's father was conferred upon one Syed Akhtar Hussain subject to certain conditions and one of the conditions was in case the school building stands demolished, the property shall revert back to the petitioner's father. It is contended that certain institution remained functional on the land in question, but later on, surreptitiously, an order dated 4.12.2019 was obtained by the private respondents from the Joint Director of Education, whereby permission to 2 WRIC No. 24033 of 2025 sell half of the land was granted by the Joint Director of Education and pursuant to the permission so granted, certain sale-deeds were executed by the respondents.

4. Various infirmities in the sale have been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner including valuation of the property as well as sale consideration etc. and it is also argued that certain proceedings of mutation etc. were held and at one point of time, a suit under Section 229-B of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was filed and sought to be decided in terms of a compromise, however, the compromise was turned down and dismissed by the court concerned and, later on, a civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale-deed has also been filed by the petitioner, which is pending before the civil court. It has further been argued that since sale has been made in violation of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974, and the permission dated 4.12.2019 was obtained keeping the petitioner in dark and in ex parte manner, the officer who had granted the permission is empowered to recall the order and take action as contemplated under the Act itself or otherwise.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid background of facts pressed for a direction upon respondent No.2-Joint Director of Education (Secondary) Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, to consider the recall application dated 22.2.2023, which is said to be supported by annexures running into 233 pages.

6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that sale-deeds have already been executed pursuant to the permission granted and the petitioner has availed remedy by filing civil suit, which is admittedly pending, it would be a futile exercise to issue a direction upon Joint Director of Education (Secondary) and even if the order dated 4.12.2019 is recalled for any reason, the same would not ipso facto render the sale-deeds as null and void unless the civil court, for the reasons stated in the suit, adjudges the validity of the sale deeds.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the provisions of Act, 1974 and also the nature of order dated 4.12.2019 challenged by means of this writ petition, the Court is not inclined to set aside the order dated 4.12.2019 after a period of four years, particularly, when various other proceedings have already been held thereafter. Therefore, the prayer to quash the order dated 4.12.2019 is barred by laches and refused, but at the same time, it is also to be noted that in case, any order has been passed by any judicial or quasi judicial authority in ignorance of certain material documents and without providing any opportunity to a person, who may have a locus in the case, particularly as 3 WRIC No. 24033 of 2025 per the soul of the statute, the authority has inherent power to recall the order so passed, irrespective of the fact, as to what would be the effect of proceedings of recall on any proceedings held subsequent to passing of the order.

8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no right of ownership vested in the private respondents and, even otherwise, sale made by them being contrary to the document of 14.9.1955 and against the provisions of Act, 1974, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2-Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, to take up the recall application dated 22.2.2023 and, after issuing notice to respondent Nos.6 & 7, namely, Jagdish Mishra and Manju Mishra, whose complete description shall be provided by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, he shall decide the recall application within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before respondent No.2 after providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the said parties too and permitting them to file their representations and objections, etc."

4. Order dated 6.9.2023 was challenged by the respondents Committee of Management Peerpur Sarvajanik Inter College & Anr, by way of a Special Appeal Defective No.848 of 2023, which was dismissed vide order dated

11.1.2024. Said order is reproduced hereinafter: "1. Delay in filing of the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing of appeal is condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2023, passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ-C No.30424 of 2023. By the order under challenge, learned Single Judge has directed the concerned Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, to consider the recall application filed by the respondent-petitioner, after issuing notices to the transferee of the land, and to take appropriate decision on the recall application.

3. The respondent-petitioner has filed the writ petition stating that her father was the owner of certain land and had leased it to the educational institution for the purposes of arranging resources for running of the institution. This land has now been transferred by the appellant with which the respondent- petitioner felt aggrieved. The permission granted by the Joint Director of Education allowing transfer of such land is thus sought to be recalled.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the transfer deed has 4 WRIC No. 24033 of 2025 been executed by the institution, the permission granted by the Director stood exhausted, and the filing of recall application is misconceived. It is also urged that petitioner has already filed a suit for cancellation of such transfer deed, where all such issues can be examined. It is, therefore, submitted that the permission granted by learned Single Judge to transfer the land cannot be challenged, nor any direction can be issued for consideration of such recall application.

5. On behalf of respondent-petitioner, it is stated that the permission has been obtained based upon misrepresentation and fraud, and therefore, such aspect of the matter is required to be examined by the Joint Director.

6. In the facts of the present case, it is apparent that permission for transfer was granted by the Joint Director of Education, on 4.12.2019, based upon the disclosure of facts by the appellant institution to the concerned authority. The respondent-petitioner alleges that facts have been misrepresented and the conditions on which the land was given to the institution have not been taken note of by the Joint Director concerned. Such issues of fact alone have been directed to be examined by learned Single Judge.

7. Considering the nature of order, which has been passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, at this stage. Since the transfer of immovable property has already taken place by way of registered sale deed, such transfer can only be nullified by a decree passed by the competent civil court. The decision of Joint Director of Education can at best be in aid of and subject to the final determination to be made by the civil court. The factual exercise, which is to be undertaken by the concerned educational authority would, therefore, cause no prejudice to the appellant, since it would remain open to examination by the civil court.

8. Special appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed."

5. In the above background, petitioner submitted a recall application before the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh to recall the order dated

4.12.2019, whereby the permission to sale was granted to the respondent, Committee of Management was rejected vide order dated 21.4.2025, Relevant part of said order is mentioned hereinafter: "सभी प्षों ्षारा उपलब्ध कराये गये िलिखत अिभकथनों एवं प्ऴाविलयों में उपलब्ध साष्यों के परी्षणोपरान्त पाया गया िकः- 1. ्ऺबन्ध सिमित, पीरपुर सावर्जिनक इण्टर कालेज, िम्तूपुर आजमगढ़ ्षारा कोई तथ्यगोपन करके संयु्व िश्षा िनदेशक, आजमगढ़ मण्डल, आजमगढ़ के आदेश िदनांक 04.12.2019 ्ऺाप्त नहीं िकया गया। संयु्व िश्षा िनदेशक, आजमगढ़ मण्डल, आजमगढ़ का आदेश िदनांक 5 WRIC No. 24033 of 2025

04.12.2019 वास्तिवक तथ्यों पर आधािरत है। 2. ्ऺाभूत भू-सम्पि्त का अन्तरण/ हस्तान्तरण ्ऺबन्ध सिमित ्षारा ्िि्वगत िहत के िलए ्ऺयोग करने सम्बन्धी कोई साष्य उपलब्ध नहीं है। 3. ्ऺबन्ध सिमित ्षारा 9 हेक्टेयर 950 एयर का 50 ्ऺितशत रूपये 2000000.00 (रूपये बीस लाख मा्ऴ) में बेचकर ्ऺाप्त धनरािश को खाते संख्या: 111413020000015 में िजला िव्यालय िनरी्षक, के नाम से प्लेज िकया गया है और उससे ्ऺाप्त ब्याज का उपभोग भवन िनमार्ण एवं मरम्मत आिद में िकया गया है। 4. याची ्शीमती हुमा हुसैन ्षारा ्ऺबन्ध सिमित ने संदान िनिध की कु ल भूिम 09 हेक्टेयर 950 एयर का आधा का िव्वय से ्ऺाप्त रूपया 22,28,200.00 की समस्त धनरािश इस कायार्लय के आदेश िदनांकः 04.12.2019 की शतर् संख्या-2 के अनुसार िजला िव्यालय िनरी्षक, आजमगढ़ के पद नाम से बन्धक न करके उ्व शतर् का उल्लंघन करते हुए के वल रूपये 20,00,000.00 ही िजला िव्यालय िनरी्षक, आजमगढ़ के पदनाम से बैंक में एफ०डी० के रूप में जमा िकये जाने के कारण आपकी ्ऺबन्ध सिमित 2,28,200.00 रूपये के गबन का आरोप लगाया परन्तु याची ्षारा भूिम रूपया 22,28,200.00 में बेचे जाने के सम्बन्ध में कोई साष्य उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया। साष्य के अभाव में यें आरोप स्वीकार नहीं िकया जा सकता है। तत्कालीन संयु्व िश्षा िनदेशक, आजमगढ़ मण्डल के उपरो्व आदेश िदनांकः 04.12.2019 को री-काल िकए जाने हेतु मा० उच्च न्यायालय, उ०्ऺ० इलाहाबाद में योिजत यािचका संख्या -30424/2023 हुमा हुसैन बनाम उ०्ऺ० राज्य व 06 अन्य में पािरत आदेश िदनांकः 06.09.2023 िजसमें मा० न्यायालय ने सभी सम्बिन्धत प्षों को सुनकर री-काल अप्लीके शन को 06 माह में िनस्तािरत करने का आदेश िदया है, के िवरू्ध मा० उच्च न्यायालय में योिजत िवशेष अपील िडफे िक्टव संख्या- 848/2023 ्ऺबन्ध सिमित, पीरपुर सावर्जिनक इण्टर कालेज व अन्य बनाम हुमा हुसैन व 5 अन्य को मा० न्यायालय के आदेश िदनांक 11.01.2024 ्षारा खािरज करते हुए मा० न्यायालय ने अपने आदेश के ्ऺस्तर -7 में िनम्नवत उल्लेख िकया हैः- 7. Considering the nature of order, which has been passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, at this stage. Since the transfer of immovable property has already taken place by way of registered sale deed, such transfer can only be nullified by a decree passed by the competent civil court. The decision of Joint Director of Education can at best be in aid of and subject to the final determination to be made by the civil court. The factual exercise, which is to be undertaken by the concerned educational authority would, therefore, cause no prejudice to the appellant, since it would remain open to examination by the civil court. मा० न्यायालय ने अपने आदेश के ्ऺस्तर- 7 में स्प्ि रूप से उल्लेख िकया है िक ्ऺश्नगत अचल सम्पि्त का रिजस्टडर् सेल डीड के माध्यम से पहले ही स्थानान्तरण सम्पन्न हो चुका है, िजसे के वल मा० न्यायालय िसिवल कोटर् के िड्वी के आधार पर ही शून्य घोिषत िकया जा सकता है। इसके अितिर्व संस्था ्ऺबन्धक ने अपने िलिखत अिभकथन िदनांक 20.07.2024 के ्ऺस्तर -8 में उल्लेख िकया है िक उभय प्षों ्षारा मा० न्यायालय िसिवल कोटर्, अम्बेडकर नगर में वषर् 2022 में इस भूिम स्थानान्तरण को लेकर पहले से ही कु ल 06 वाद योिजत िकए गए है, जो मा० न्यायालय िसिवल कोटर् अम्बेडकर नगर के सम्ष अ्यतन िवचाराधीन है तथा वतर्मान में उभय प्षों के पास स्षम मा० न्यायालय का कोई िड्वी/ आदेश उपलब्ध नही है। WRIC No. 24033 of 2025 6 िनणर्य तत्कालीन संयु्व िश्षा िनदेशक, आजमगढ़ मण्डल, आजमगढ़ के भू-स्थानान्तरण अनुमित आदेश िदनांकः 04.12.2019 उ्तर ्ऺदेश शैि्षक संस्थाएँ (अिस्तयों के अप्िय का िनवारण) अिधिनयम -1974, उ०्ऺ० अिधिनयम सं० 3 सं० 1975 में िदये गये ्ऺािवधानों एवं वास्तिवक तथ्यों के आधार पर ्ऺदान िकया गया है तथा आदेश में लगाये गये ्ऺितबन्धों का ्ऺबन्ध सिमित ्षारा उल्लंघन सम्बिन्धत कोई साष्य उपलब्ध नहीं है तथा भूिम अन्तरण / हस्तान्तरण सम्बिन्धत वाद मा० न्यायायलय, िसिवल कोटर् अम्बेडकर नगर में िवचाराधीन होने के कारण संयु्व िश्षा िनदेशक , आजमगढ़ मण्डल, आजमगढ के आदेश िदनांकः 04.12.2019 को िरकाल करने का कोई औिचत्य ्ऺतीत नहीं बनता है। मा० उच्च न्यायालय में योिजत िवशेष अपील िडफे िक्टव संख्या -848/ 2023 ्ऺवन्ध सिमित, पीरपुर सावर्जिनक इण्टर कालेज व अन्य बनाम हुमा हुसैन व 05 अन्य में पािरत आदेश िदनांकः 11.01.2024 के अनुपालन में एतद्षारा याची के िरकाल एप्लीके शन िदनांक: 22.02.2023 को अस्वीकार करते एत्द्षारा ्ऺकरण का िनस्तारण िकया जाता है।"

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Division Bench of this Court after taking note of above referred facts that civil suits are also pending before the competent Court, still a direction to consider the Recall Application was upheld. However, by impugned order Recall Application was rejected on the same ground that Civil Suits were pending before the competent Court for cancellation of sale deed and as such an illegality was committed.

7. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Committee of Management submitted that permission to grant sale vide order dated

4.12.2019 has already been executed and sale deed has been effected and matter is now seized with the competent Civil Court wherein all relevant issues raised could be considered for consideration and be decided accordingly. He further submitted that even if the permission is set-aside, without setting aside the sale deed, no effective relief could be granted to the petitioner.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. In present case, the petitioner has claimed that his father by way of a registered sale deed dated 13.5.1955 has leased out land in question to the respondent registered Society and said Society after withholding certain relevant facts has sought permission to sell the said land which is situated at a distance of about (30 Kms) from the College and the concerned respondent 7 WRIC No. 24033 of 2025 has granted permission to sell the said land vide order dated 4.12.2019 taking note that Committee of Management has adopted a proposal to sell out the said land on a ground that it was situated about 30 Kms away from the College and quite big part of it was encroached and it was not effectively utilized for purpose of the Committee.

10. It would be a question for consideration as to whether petitioner has a locus to file such a recall application or not, since he has to place his case that he has still a right over the said land and for that he ought to have challenged the permission granted on 4.12.2019, whereby in accordance with law.

11. So far as recall application is concerned, there no provision is placed on record which provides specific provision to recall an order passed by the authority concerned.

12. In the above background since it is not under much dispute that petitioner himself has filed a Civil Suit for cancellation of sale deed, though copy of it is not placed on record, but in all probability a ground must have been taken that permission was contrary to law and in such circumstances, the best forum is the Civil Court to decide the said issue after exchange of pleadings, statement and cross-examination of witnesses.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances when there are legal impediments and there is no specific provision to recall the order of granting permission to sell the land in question and it would create an ambiguity if in a circumstances application for recall is allowed and suit for cancellation of sale deed filed by the petitioner gets dismissed, therefore, in order to avoid any ambiguity also, no reason exist to interfere the impugned order.

14. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. October 16, 2025 SB (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad