LUCKNOW vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

castigating the petitioners on the aforesaid grounds and affirming an illegal order without affording an opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained, accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the matter be remanded to enable the petitioners to furnish his evidences in support of his submissions. The learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a decision of this case in Chaturgun v. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2005 (2) AWC 1256.

15. Sri J.P. Maurya, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice is not attracted for the reason that the petitioners admittedly were put to notice, they had furnished their reply which has been considered and now once an order is passed against the petitioners, they cannot cry foul and plead that there has been violation of principles of natural justice.

16. It has further been urged that the one of the petitioner was an employee of the State Government and was working as a Lekhpal and he was aware of the entire matter. If at all, he could not for whatever reason furnish the necessary evidence before the Sub Divisional Officer, he could have brought the same on record before the Revisional Court but it was not done, hence, it cannot be said that the orders passed by the two courts are bad.

17. Sri Maurya, learned counsel for the State has also urged that even if the sections quoted in the application filed by the respondent or in the orders passed by the Authorities may be incorrect but then what is 4 WRIC No. 1003107 of 2003 material is whether the Authority had the jurisdiction to proceed in law. If the Authority does not have the jurisdiction to proceed in the matter irrespective of whether the correct or the incorrect sections are mentioned, the orders would be bad but merely by incorporating incorrect sections where the Authority has the jurisdiction then a basic plea of such nature may not be entertained unless it is established that by mentioning a wrong section any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner whereby he has been obstructed to contest the proceedings effectively. This not being the situation, hence, this plea also fails and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

18. Sri Utkarsh Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 5 has also made submissions and mirrored what has been submitted by Sri Maurya, learned counsel for the State. He has taken the Court through various documents to indicate that the petitioner was put to notice and he participated in the proceedings. It is not the case of the petitioner that he did not have adequate representation. Moreover, it is urged that once the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and it may be assumed that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer did not provide adequate opportunity but then while filing the revision, the petitioner should have brought on record all the necessary documents to establish his case which was not done and even otherwise while filing the instant petition also the petitioner has not brought any material on record, accordingly, his plea of violation of principles of natural justice is patently erroneous.

19. It is urged that a fraudulent entry has been corrected by the Authorities who are legally obliged to perform their duties and having done so, the orders impugned cannot be said to be bad, accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

20. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

21. Considering the first plea raised by the learned Senior Counsel regarding violation of principles of natural justice, this Court finds that it is liable to be rejected for more than one reason, as noticed hereinafter:-

22. It is not disputed that the petitioners were put to notice and were 5 WRIC No. 1003107 of 2003 specifically called for to furnish all the necessary documents and evidence regarding the title to their case and admittedly the petitioner had merely furnished their objections without any documentary evidence.

23. It is one thing to say that the petitioner were not heard and it is another thing to say that though a person has participated in the proceedings and once the order has gone against him, he pleads that he should have been granted time to file the evidence. As far as the first part is concerned, that is not applicable here, since the petitioner were put to notice, they participated in the proceedings, they also furnished their objections and before passing of the order, they was also heard. Thus, the basic premise upon which the writ petition has been argued that the petitioners were not granted an opportunity of hearing is per se bad.

24. As far as the second limb of this submission to the effect that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to lead evidence is concerned, it is also erroneous for the reason that no one stopped the petitioner from submitting the documents rather the notice which was issued to the petitioners, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 5 clearly indicated that the petitioner was called upon to submit his reply including all such orders passed by any competent authority which would be in favour of the petitioners and despite the said notice served on the petitioners on 16.03.2002 against which the petitioners furnished his reply on 23.03.2002 and the order came to be passed on 14.05.2002, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not have adequate opportunity.

25. Taking this issue a little forward, had the petitioners not been able to furnish the necessary documents before the Sub Divisional Officer, again nothing prevented the petitioners from furnishing those documents before the Revisional Court especially when the petitioners knew that they were required to furnish documents and evidence in their favour. Even before the Revisional Authority, no such document was filed.

26. It will be relevant to notice that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is dated 14.05.2002 and the revision came to be dismissed on

25.07.2003, there was ample time for the petitioners to have furnished the document in their favour, but nothing was done to bring it on record of 6 WRIC No. 1003107 of 2003 the court of first instance and the Revisional Court.

27. At this stage, a feeble submission was also made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that had the opportunity been granted only then the petitioners would have furnished the said documents as the Revisional Court was not authorized to take evidence.

28. This submission also does not impresses this Court for the reason that if the petitioners had any documents in support of their case, they could have brought the same to the notice of the Revisional Authority not merely for the reason that the Revisional Court may have entertained the evidence (if at all the Revisional Court is not authorised to take the evidence as suggested by learned Senior Counsel) yet that could have been a ground which the Revisional Court could have prima facie seen to make up its mind as to whether the petitioners had a prima facie case.

29. Having failed to place the documents and the Revisional Court noticed the fact that the petitioner himself was a Senior Lekhpal, it was enough for it to observe that the petitioners was not an illiterate person having no knowledge both regarding the law and the fact and in such circumstances, the thrust of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel is not attractive to give sheen to the plea of violation of principles of natural justice which stands eroded.

30. It will also be relevant to notice that at all times merely because an opportunity has not been granted will not be sufficient to get an order set aside, unless it is shown that the petitioners also suffered prejudice. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners had participated but not filed the requisite documents, hence, it is not open for the petitioners to say that they were not provided with an opportunity of hearing.

31. The decision cited by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Chaturgun (supra) is on a different fact situation and apparently in the instant case where the petitioner had been granted an opportunity to participate, hence, the said case does not come to the help of the petitioner, especially, when the petitioners did not furnish any document either before the Sub Divisional Officer or the Revisional Court, so much so, even before this Court, as there was no document in favour of the 7 WRIC No. 1003107 of 2003 petitioners filed on record while filing the writ petition.

32. This Court is also reminded of a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Durgawati Singh and others v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits Lucknow and others; 2022 SCC Online All 10 wherein the question regarding violation of principles of natural justice was considered and by taking the aid of the decisions of the Apex Court, this Court found that it is not merely non-grant of an opportunity alone but also a person pleading such violation has to establish the prejudice caused.

33. If the submissions and the record of the instant case is examined from this point of view, it would reveal that though the writ petition was filed in the year 2003 but the rejoinder affidavit came to be filed by the petitioner only in the year 2019 and for the first time, a photocopy of an order said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer on

01.01.1983 in favour of the petitioner in proceedings under Section 9- A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

34. As far as this document is concerned, it indicates that the said order is of the year 1.1.1983 and the certified copy appears to have been issued on

04.01.1993. It would be relevant to notice that if the said certified copy was available with the petitioners since 1993 why the same was not produced or placed on record till the year 2019 i.e. 26 years is still to be guessed.

35. From the perusal of the said order which indicates that Plot No. 1207 which was recorded as Rasta has been cancelled and it has been recorded in the name of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that they had also filed a questionnaire indicating that Case bearing No. 691 (Shamshad Ahmad Vs. State) was filed before the Consolidation Authorities which was decided on 01st January, 1983 and its reference is also mentioned in the register at serial no. 1423 and that the files have already been weeded out on 24.12.1999.

36. A specific query was put to the learned Senior Counsel as to whether the original certified copy of the said order could be placed before the Court to which he could not answer rather it was informed that a 8 WRIC No. 1003107 of 2003 photocopy has been filed and since it corroborates with the information given in questionnaire, hence, there was prima facie reflection of its authenticity and it could not be ignored especially when the State has not denied the said document.

37. Even this contention does not impresses this Court for the reason that had the said plot been recorded in the name of the petitioners and prior thereto in the name of his predecessors, definitely, there could have been several documents corroborating the same. The alleged document filed with the rejoinder affidavit referable to an order passed on 01.01.1983 in proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act 1953 and coupled with the fact that the one of the petitioner himself was a Lekhpal, he would have obviously known the importance of the revenue documents, however, no such document was brought on record. Even prior to the commencement of the consolidation, the name of the petitioners or his predecessors must have been recorded in the revenue records but no such record has been placed.

38. Upon commencement of the consolidation operations, upon a survey being made, Form CH-2-A is issued which would have indicated who was found in possession, where and on what plot. Even that is not on record.

39. The petitioner also could not satisfy that once the consolidation officer had passed the order dated 01.01.1983, obviously this order would have got translated and incorporated in various registers maintained during the consolidations operations including in CH Form-41 and 45 which have also not been placed on record.

40. What is further surprising to note that the said land has been recorded as a public utility land and in case if upon the objections filed by the petitioners, the same was corrected or decided in proceedings under Section 9-A(2) which are akin to proceedings of title then necessarily the said plots would have been cancelled from the public utility land its incorporation would have been reflected in the revenue records during consolidation and post consolidation but either way, no such document has been produced.

41. Thus, the entire contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the 9 WRIC No. 1003107 of 2003 petitioner that he has been deprived of an opportunity of hearing and that his sheet-anchor document which has been placed only on record along with the rejoinder affidavit and if it had been placed before the Authorities, even then nothing would have turned on it, unless it was duly corroborated by other documents which were never placed nor said to be available with the petitioners.

42. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that when the Commissioner called for a report, it was found that the entries as claimed by the petitioner did not find any basis, hence, the entries have been corrected which is referable to the powers available with the Revenue Officers under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, accordingly, for this reason as well, it cannot be said that by merely quoting a wrong provision, the orders are bad as the Authorities do have a right of correcting the revenue entries and they have done so after putting the petitioners to notice, hence, in light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is no error committed by the Authorities in passing the two orders which are affirmed, however, it is stated that since the orders passed by the Authorities are under summary proceedings, hence, any observations made either by the Revenue Authorities or by this Court may only be taken as prima facie observations and in case if the petitioner seeks to get his title vindicated on merits on the regular side then the observations made herein may not be taken as expression on merits of the plea and documents.

43. Subject to the aforesaid, the petition is misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed. October 30, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

castigating the petitioners on the aforesaid grounds and affirming an illegal order without affording an opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained, accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the matter be remanded to enable the petitioners to furnish his evidences in support of his submissions. The learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a decision of this case in Chaturgun v. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2005 (2) AWC 1256.

15. Sri J.P. Maurya, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice is not attracted for the reason that the petitioners admittedly were put to notice, they had furnished their reply which has been considered and now once an order is passed against the petitioners, they cannot cry foul and plead that there has been violation of principles of natural justice.

16. It has further been urged that the one of the petitioner was an employee of the State Government and was working as a Lekhpal and he was aware of the entire matter. If at all, he could not for whatever reason furnish the necessary evidence before the Sub Divisional Officer, he could have brought the same on record before the Revisional Court but it was not done, hence, it cannot be said that the orders passed by the two courts are bad.

17. Sri Maurya, learned counsel for the State has also urged that even if the sections quoted in the application filed by the respondent or in the orders passed by the Authorities may be incorrect but then what is 4 WRIC No. 1003107 of 2003 material is whether the Authority had the jurisdiction to proceed in law. If the Authority does not have the jurisdiction to proceed in the matter irrespective of whether the correct or the incorrect sections are mentioned, the orders would be bad but merely by incorporating incorrect sections where the Authority has the jurisdiction then a basic plea of such nature may not be entertained unless it is established that by mentioning a wrong section any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner whereby he has been obstructed to contest the proceedings effectively. This not being the situation, hence, this plea also fails and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

18. Sri Utkarsh Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 5 has also made submissions and mirrored what has been submitted by Sri Maurya, learned counsel for the State. He has taken the Court through various documents to indicate that the petitioner was put to notice and he participated in the proceedings. It is not the case of the petitioner that he did not have adequate representation. Moreover, it is urged that once the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and it may be assumed that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer did not provide adequate opportunity but then while filing the revision, the petitioner should have brought on record all the necessary documents to establish his case which was not done and even otherwise while filing the instant petition also the petitioner has not brought any material on record, accordingly, his plea of violation of principles of natural justice is patently erroneous.

19. It is urged that a fraudulent entry has been corrected by the Authorities who are legally obliged to perform their duties and having done so, the orders impugned cannot be said to be bad, accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

20. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

21. Considering the first plea raised by the learned Senior Counsel regarding violation of principles of natural justice, this Court finds that it is liable to be rejected for more than one reason, as noticed hereinafter:-

22. It is not disputed that the petitioners were put to notice and were 5 WRIC No. 1003107 of 2003 specifically called for to furnish all the necessary documents and evidence regarding the title to their case and admittedly the petitioner had merely furnished their objections without any documentary evidence.

23. It is one thing to say that the petitioner were not heard and it is another thing to say that though a person has participated in the proceedings and once the order has gone against him, he pleads that he should have been granted time to file the evidence. As far as the first part is concerned, that is not applicable here, since the petitioner were put to notice, they participated in the proceedings, they also furnished their objections and before passing of the order, they was also heard. Thus, the basic premise upon which the writ petition has been argued that the petitioners were not granted an opportunity of hearing is per se bad.

24. As far as the second limb of this submission to the effect that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to lead evidence is concerned, it is also erroneous for the reason that no one stopped the petitioner from submitting the documents rather the notice which was issued to the petitioners, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 5 clearly indicated that the petitioner was called upon to submit his reply including all such orders passed by any competent authority which would be in favour of the petitioners and despite the said notice served on the petitioners on 16.03.2002 against which the petitioners furnished his reply on 23.03.2002 and the order came to be passed on 14.05.2002, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not have adequate opportunity.

25. Taking this issue a little forward, had the petitioners not been able to furnish the necessary documents before the Sub Divisional Officer, again nothing prevented the petitioners from furnishing those documents before the Revisional Court especially when the petitioners knew that they were required to furnish documents and evidence in their favour. Even before the Revisional Authority, no such document was filed.

26. It will be relevant to notice that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is dated 14.05.2002 and the revision came to be dismissed on

25.07.2003, there was ample time for the petitioners to have furnished the document in their favour, but nothing was done to bring it on record of 6 WRIC No. 1003107 of 2003 the court of first instance and the Revisional Court.

27. At this stage, a feeble submission was also made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that had the opportunity been granted only then the petitioners would have furnished the said documents as the Revisional Court was not authorized to take evidence.

28. This submission also does not impresses this Court for the reason that if the petitioners had any documents in support of their case, they could have brought the same to the notice of the Revisional Authority not merely for the reason that the Revisional Court may have entertained the evidence (if at all the Revisional Court is not authorised to take the evidence as suggested by learned Senior Counsel) yet that could have been a ground which the Revisional Court could have prima facie seen to make up its mind as to whether the petitioners had a prima facie case.

29. Having failed to place the documents and the Revisional Court noticed the fact that the petitioner himself was a Senior Lekhpal, it was enough for it to observe that the petitioners was not an illiterate person having no knowledge both regarding the law and the fact and in such circumstances, the thrust of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel is not attractive to give sheen to the plea of violation of principles of natural justice which stands eroded.

30. It will also be relevant to notice that at all times merely because an opportunity has not been granted will not be sufficient to get an order set aside, unless it is shown that the petitioners also suffered prejudice. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners had participated but not filed the requisite documents, hence, it is not open for the petitioners to say that they were not provided with an opportunity of hearing.

31. The decision cited by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Chaturgun (supra) is on a different fact situation and apparently in the instant case where the petitioner had been granted an opportunity to participate, hence, the said case does not come to the help of the petitioner, especially, when the petitioners did not furnish any document either before the Sub Divisional Officer or the Revisional Court, so much so, even before this Court, as there was no document in favour of the 7 WRIC No. 1003107 of 2003 petitioners filed on record while filing the writ petition.

32. This Court is also reminded of a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Durgawati Singh and others v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits Lucknow and others; 2022 SCC Online All 10 wherein the question regarding violation of principles of natural justice was considered and by taking the aid of the decisions of the Apex Court, this Court found that it is not merely non-grant of an opportunity alone but also a person pleading such violation has to establish the prejudice caused.

33. If the submissions and the record of the instant case is examined from this point of view, it would reveal that though the writ petition was filed in the year 2003 but the rejoinder affidavit came to be filed by the petitioner only in the year 2019 and for the first time, a photocopy of an order said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer on

01.01.1983 in favour of the petitioner in proceedings under Section 9- A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

34. As far as this document is concerned, it indicates that the said order is of the year 1.1.1983 and the certified copy appears to have been issued on

04.01.1993. It would be relevant to notice that if the said certified copy was available with the petitioners since 1993 why the same was not produced or placed on record till the year 2019 i.e. 26 years is still to be guessed.

35. From the perusal of the said order which indicates that Plot No. 1207 which was recorded as Rasta has been cancelled and it has been recorded in the name of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that they had also filed a questionnaire indicating that Case bearing No. 691 (Shamshad Ahmad Vs. State) was filed before the Consolidation Authorities which was decided on 01st January, 1983 and its reference is also mentioned in the register at serial no. 1423 and that the files have already been weeded out on 24.12.1999.

36. A specific query was put to the learned Senior Counsel as to whether the original certified copy of the said order could be placed before the Court to which he could not answer rather it was informed that a 8 WRIC No. 1003107 of 2003 photocopy has been filed and since it corroborates with the information given in questionnaire, hence, there was prima facie reflection of its authenticity and it could not be ignored especially when the State has not denied the said document.

37. Even this contention does not impresses this Court for the reason that had the said plot been recorded in the name of the petitioners and prior thereto in the name of his predecessors, definitely, there could have been several documents corroborating the same. The alleged document filed with the rejoinder affidavit referable to an order passed on 01.01.1983 in proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act 1953 and coupled with the fact that the one of the petitioner himself was a Lekhpal, he would have obviously known the importance of the revenue documents, however, no such document was brought on record. Even prior to the commencement of the consolidation, the name of the petitioners or his predecessors must have been recorded in the revenue records but no such record has been placed.

38. Upon commencement of the consolidation operations, upon a survey being made, Form CH-2-A is issued which would have indicated who was found in possession, where and on what plot. Even that is not on record.

39. The petitioner also could not satisfy that once the consolidation officer had passed the order dated 01.01.1983, obviously this order would have got translated and incorporated in various registers maintained during the consolidations operations including in CH Form-41 and 45 which have also not been placed on record.

40. What is further surprising to note that the said land has been recorded as a public utility land and in case if upon the objections filed by the petitioners, the same was corrected or decided in proceedings under Section 9-A(2) which are akin to proceedings of title then necessarily the said plots would have been cancelled from the public utility land its incorporation would have been reflected in the revenue records during consolidation and post consolidation but either way, no such document has been produced.

41. Thus, the entire contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the 9 WRIC No. 1003107 of 2003 petitioner that he has been deprived of an opportunity of hearing and that his sheet-anchor document which has been placed only on record along with the rejoinder affidavit and if it had been placed before the Authorities, even then nothing would have turned on it, unless it was duly corroborated by other documents which were never placed nor said to be available with the petitioners.

42. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that when the Commissioner called for a report, it was found that the entries as claimed by the petitioner did not find any basis, hence, the entries have been corrected which is referable to the powers available with the Revenue Officers under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, accordingly, for this reason as well, it cannot be said that by merely quoting a wrong provision, the orders are bad as the Authorities do have a right of correcting the revenue entries and they have done so after putting the petitioners to notice, hence, in light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is no error committed by the Authorities in passing the two orders which are affirmed, however, it is stated that since the orders passed by the Authorities are under summary proceedings, hence, any observations made either by the Revenue Authorities or by this Court may only be taken as prima facie observations and in case if the petitioner seeks to get his title vindicated on merits on the regular side then the observations made herein may not be taken as expression on merits of the plea and documents.

43. Subject to the aforesaid, the petition is misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed. October 30, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench