High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Shri Mohan Singh learned counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.4.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 17.09.2024 whereby in proceedings under Section 122 Kha of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 the recall application moved by the petitioner was rejected as a consequence the order dated 14.05.2024 has been afÏrmed and the order dated 10.11.1993 passed by the respondent no.3 was also afÏrmed.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 122 Kha of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The petitioner had filed his objections and initially the matter was decided against the petitioner, against which he had preferred a revision and by means of order dated 04.01.2021, the revision was allowed and the matter was remitted for a decision afresh.

4. It is urged that even after the matter was remanded and despite the petitioner having filed his detailed objections, yet another novel method of by passing the principle of nature justice was adopted by the court concerned; inasmuch as vide its order dated 26.10.2023 the matter was fixed for measurement and inspection of the property in question fixing 07.11.2023.

5. It is urged that though no specific time was fixed for the inspection nor the same was communicated to the petitioner. However, on the very same date i.e. 07.11.2023 behind the back of the petitioner an alleged inspection was done. The report was placed on the record and without even calling for the objections against the said inspection report on the very same date itself the matter was fixed for 09.11.2023 for orders. Even though, the orders could not be passed on 09.11.2023, no order sheet was drawn, however, the impugned order dated 10.11.2013 was passed rejecting the objections of the petitioner and an order of eviction and the imposition of damages and costs was passed.

6. It is urged that this matter was escalated by filing a revision which did not find favour as well as an application for recall was moved which also met the same fate as a consequence the petitioner is before this Court seeking redressal of his grievance.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the instructions submits that even though opportunity was granted but the petitioner did not file his objections, therefore, it is not appropriate to state that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing.

8. In light of the controversy involved, this Court with the consent of learned counsel for the parties is deciding this petition at the admission stage itself as the State does not wish to file a counter- afÏdavit.

9. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, the learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that the matter was listed before the Court concerned on 26.10.2023 as shall be evident from the extract of the order sheet brought on record as annexure no.17 wherein the date for inspection and measurement was fixed for 07.11.2023. It is stated and also corroborated from the order sheet which is at running page 71 of the paper book and indicates that some inspection took place and its report was placed on the record on 07.11.2023 itself.

10. Learned Standing Counsel also could not indicate that when the matter was listed on 07.11.2023 for inspection and the inspection itself was done on 07.11.2023 then how the petitioner was informed that at what time the inspection will take place and when the report was prepared and how it was placed on the record on the very same date i.e. 07.11.2023 and against the aforesaid queries there was no explanation tendered. Even otherwise, the order-sheet reflects that upon considering the report dated 07.11.2023, the matter was fixed for orders. There does not appear to be any order sheet or indication that any opportunity was granted to the petitioner inviting objections on the said inspection report. In the matter the date after 07.11.2023 was fixed for 09.11.2023 and thereafter the impugned order came to be passed on 10.11.2023.

11. Apparently, it is a clear case where no opportunity was granted to the petitioner and it appears that ofÏcer concerned was in a haste to decide the proceedings. Wherever there are judicial/quasi judicial proceedings which determine rights of the parties the least that is expected is to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing. The record does not indicate that the petitioner had been procrastinating the litigation, rather on the other hand, it appears that the court was proceedings in haste.

12. Since there was no opportunity granted to the petitioner for filing objections against the report and thereafter there was no adjudication on the aforesaid issue merely the order has been passed, it is clear that the petitioner was deprived of filing objections to the inspection report and was also deprived of making their submissions before the Court concerned.

13. Accordingly the impugned orders being against the principle of natural justice cannot be upheld, consequently, the orders dated 17.09.2024, 14,05.2024 as well as 10.11.2023 are set aside. The proceedings shall stand restored on the Board of respondent no.3 who shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties including inviting the objections against the inspection report shall consider and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

14. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the merits of either of the parties and the impugned orders have been set aside solely on the ground that it violates the rights of the petitioner to have a fair opportunity of hearing most expediently.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Shri Mohan Singh learned counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.4.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 17.09.2024 whereby in proceedings under Section 122 Kha of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 the recall application moved by the petitioner was rejected as a consequence the order dated 14.05.2024 has been afÏrmed and the order dated 10.11.1993 passed by the respondent no.3 was also afÏrmed.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 122 Kha of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The petitioner had filed his objections and initially the matter was decided against the petitioner, against which he had preferred a revision and by means of order dated 04.01.2021, the revision was allowed and the matter was remitted for a decision afresh.

4. It is urged that even after the matter was remanded and despite the petitioner having filed his detailed objections, yet another novel method of by passing the principle of nature justice was adopted by the court concerned; inasmuch as vide its order dated 26.10.2023 the matter was fixed for measurement and inspection of the property in question fixing 07.11.2023.

5. It is urged that though no specific time was fixed for the inspection nor the same was communicated to the petitioner. However, on the very same date i.e. 07.11.2023 behind the back of the petitioner an alleged inspection was done. The report was placed on the record and without even calling for the objections against the said inspection report on the very same date itself the matter was fixed for 09.11.2023 for orders. Even though, the orders could not be passed on 09.11.2023, no order sheet was drawn, however, the impugned order dated 10.11.2013 was passed rejecting the objections of the petitioner and an order of eviction and the imposition of damages and costs was passed.

6. It is urged that this matter was escalated by filing a revision which did not find favour as well as an application for recall was moved which also met the same fate as a consequence the petitioner is before this Court seeking redressal of his grievance.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the instructions submits that even though opportunity was granted but the petitioner did not file his objections, therefore, it is not appropriate to state that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing.

8. In light of the controversy involved, this Court with the consent of learned counsel for the parties is deciding this petition at the admission stage itself as the State does not wish to file a counter- afÏdavit.

9. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, the learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that the matter was listed before the Court concerned on 26.10.2023 as shall be evident from the extract of the order sheet brought on record as annexure no.17 wherein the date for inspection and measurement was fixed for 07.11.2023. It is stated and also corroborated from the order sheet which is at running page 71 of the paper book and indicates that some inspection took place and its report was placed on the record on 07.11.2023 itself.

10. Learned Standing Counsel also could not indicate that when the matter was listed on 07.11.2023 for inspection and the inspection itself was done on 07.11.2023 then how the petitioner was informed that at what time the inspection will take place and when the report was prepared and how it was placed on the record on the very same date i.e. 07.11.2023 and against the aforesaid queries there was no explanation tendered. Even otherwise, the order-sheet reflects that upon considering the report dated 07.11.2023, the matter was fixed for orders. There does not appear to be any order sheet or indication that any opportunity was granted to the petitioner inviting objections on the said inspection report. In the matter the date after 07.11.2023 was fixed for 09.11.2023 and thereafter the impugned order came to be passed on 10.11.2023.

11. Apparently, it is a clear case where no opportunity was granted to the petitioner and it appears that ofÏcer concerned was in a haste to decide the proceedings. Wherever there are judicial/quasi judicial proceedings which determine rights of the parties the least that is expected is to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing. The record does not indicate that the petitioner had been procrastinating the litigation, rather on the other hand, it appears that the court was proceedings in haste.

12. Since there was no opportunity granted to the petitioner for filing objections against the report and thereafter there was no adjudication on the aforesaid issue merely the order has been passed, it is clear that the petitioner was deprived of filing objections to the inspection report and was also deprived of making their submissions before the Court concerned.

13. Accordingly the impugned orders being against the principle of natural justice cannot be upheld, consequently, the orders dated 17.09.2024, 14,05.2024 as well as 10.11.2023 are set aside. The proceedings shall stand restored on the Board of respondent no.3 who shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties including inviting the objections against the inspection report shall consider and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

14. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the merits of either of the parties and the impugned orders have been set aside solely on the ground that it violates the rights of the petitioner to have a fair opportunity of hearing most expediently.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench