High Court · 2025

1. Application for impleadment has been filed by Shri Uma Kant Mishra stating that the property in dispute has been purchased by the applicant by means of registered sale deed on 13.01.2014 and the applicant had also moved an application for impleadment in the pending proceedings before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Sultanpur and his impleadment application was also allowed by means of order dated 29.4.2023.

2. Accordingly, the application for impleadment filed by the petitioner is allowed.

3. The petitioner is directed to incorporate the name of the applicant as respondent no. 5 during the course of the day.

4. Heard Shri Abhishek Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Shri Uma Kant Mishra, learned counsel for duly impleaded respondent no.5.

5. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.6.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, wherein he has rejected the application for recall of the order dated 27.1.2025. Petitioner also assailed the order dated 27.1.2025 as well as the order dated 15.2.2018 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute in the present case pertains to the mutation of the property which was registered in the name of Ms. Urmila Devi and after her death an application for mutation was filed, which was contested by the petitioner as well as by the respondents. Ultimately the matter reached the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division in Case No. 00451/2018 Computerized Case No. C201804000000451, under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. In the said proceedings an application for impleadment was filed by respondent no.5, which was allowed before his name could be incorporated, the matter came to be decided finally, by means of order dated 27.1.2025 and an application for recall, which was filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 4.6.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was passed without giving any adequate opportunity of hearing and in fact the case was listed on 27.11.2024, on which date it was adjourned to 28.03.2024 and in the meanwhile application dated 22.12.2024 was preferred by respondent no.5 and the case was directed to be listed on 27.1.2025 and the petitioner was never given a copy of the application nor any notice was served upon him with regard to the preponement of the date and the matter was finally decided on 27.1.2025. Petitioner has given an application for recall, which was rejected on 4.6.2025 after recording that both the parties have been heard and accordingly the matter is not an exparte order and hence the application for recall was rejected.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances this Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the record and has passed the following order:- "1. Heard Sri Abhishek Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that the proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code were initiated by predecessor-in-interest of opposite party No.2 which application was allowed on 26.12.2013 by Tehsildar, Kadipur, District Sultanpur and the application for recall filed by the petitioner was also rejected which was assailed by the petitioner in revision before the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya. It has been submitted that the said revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was registered as case No.00451/2018 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 25.3.2025 vide order dated 27.11.2024. It has been submitted that without any notice to the petitioner it seems that the date of the case was pre-poned and the matter was finally heard ex-parte on 27.1.2025 and the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. It has further been submitted that a perusal of the impugned order dated 27.1.2025 would indicate that the order has been passed merely on perusal of the record and there is no averment of any of the parties who were heard.

4. When the petitioner came to know about the said order he had moved an application for recall duly stating aforesaid facts with regard to pre- ponement of the date and not providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and despite those facts being brought to the knowledge of the court the application for recall was rejected on 4.6.2025.

5. In case, the averments made by the petitioner are correct then certainly there is serious lapse of judicial propriety by the authority passing the impugned order which deserves to be taken serious note of. Any authority acting judicially is required to give due opportunity of hearing to either of the parties and while deciding the rights has to duly discuss various factual aspects as well as legal provisions cited by either of the parties. The adversarial system followed in our courts by the authorities do not envisage a situation where the judgments are passed without due opportunity of hearing or following the procedure prescribed by law which seems to be apparent on the face of the record in the present case. Accordingly, to examine the aforesaid facts, learned Standing counsel is directed to place original record of the aforesaid case before this Court on the next date.

6. List on 23.7.2025."

9. The original record has been produced by the learned Standing Counsel, from which it transpires that a hand written application has been given by respondent no.5 bringing on record the order of this Court dated 26.11.2024. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that a copy of the application dated 20.12.2024 was not given to learned counsel for the petitioner. The application was preferred by respondent no.5 on which the date of hearing was preponed from 28.3.2025 to 7.1.2025.

10. Apart from the above, the impugned order dated 7.1.2025 the file was put up on 7.1.2025, on which date it is recorded that the arguments were presented and the case was adjourned to 22.1.2025. On 22.1.2025 there was no mention of appearance of the parties but it was only recorded that the order could not be passed and the matter was fixed on 27.1.2025. On 27.1.2025 the impugned order was passed. From the entire order sheet it is abundantly clear that firstly the the application bringing on record the order passed by this Court was never given to the petitioner. The date fixed was never communicated by the Court to the petitioner, so as enable him to put in appearance. The order dated 7.1.2025 stating that the arguments were presented by the parties also does not inspire confidence for the reason that in case the arguments were completed I do not find any reason as to why the order was not pronounced or the matter was not reserved. Further even the order dated 22.1.2025 also does not mention the appearance of the parties or mention their oral submission. Most surprisingly the fact that the detailed judgment on 27.1.2025 has been passed only on the basis of perusal of the record which is evident from the second paragraph of page no. 2 of the impugned judgement.

11. From the above, I find that the rejection of the application for recall is also arbitrary stating that both the parties were heard on 27.1.2025 when the judgement was pronounced.

12. From the aforesaid fact, miscarriage of justice is evident on the face of record. Any application filed in the proceeding necessarily have to be given to the contesting parties, so as to enable him to effectively protect their interest and make adequate representation before the court concerned.

13. In case the application filed on 20.12.2024 was merely taken on record would have not caused prejudice to either of the parties, but instead of the revisional authority proceeded to prepone the date fixing the next date as 7.1.2025. Even if, there was reasonable ground for expediting the proceedings and changing the date already fixed, it was necessary that the same should have been done in presence of the parties concerned or at least notices of this order should have been given to the concerned parties. Merely passing an order preponing the matter without intimating to the contesting parties seriously causes prejudice and is contrary to the settled principle of propriety.

14. Accordingly, I find that the manner in which the revisional authorities proceeded in the matter does not indicate that they have followed the settled principle of judicial propriety and failed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further from a perusal of the order dated 27.1.2025 it is evident that the contentions raised by the petitioner should have been duly recorded in case he had appeared and argued the matter. But instead of recording his arguments merely averments made in the proceedings have been noted and the matter decided and even the arguments of the respondents have not been considered or recorded in the order dated 27.1.2025 and subsequently only an effort to uphold his order he has rejected the application for recall of the order dated 4.6.2025.

15. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that miscarriage of justice has substantially been caused to the petitioner, who has not been heard in the said proceedings. Accordingly the matter requires interference in the light of the above.

16. For the reasons recorded herein above, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 4.6.2025 and 27.1.2025 are set aside.

17. The matter is remitted to the Revisional Authority for passing fresh order in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. It would be in the interest of justice that the matter is placed before the Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, either he may hear the revision himself or direct any other competent authority to decide the revision with expedition.

18. The office of the Chief Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, forthwith, to conclude the same with expedition.

19. The parties have agreed that they shall appear before the revisional authority, so nominated by the Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, on 11.8.2025. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 23.7.2025 Muk MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Application for impleadment has been filed by Shri Uma Kant Mishra stating that the property in dispute has been purchased by the applicant by means of registered sale deed on 13.01.2014 and the applicant had also moved an application for impleadment in the pending proceedings before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Sultanpur and his impleadment application was also allowed by means of order dated 29.4.2023.

2. Accordingly, the application for impleadment filed by the petitioner is allowed.

3. The petitioner is directed to incorporate the name of the applicant as respondent no. 5 during the course of the day.

4. Heard Shri Abhishek Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Shri Uma Kant Mishra, learned counsel for duly impleaded respondent no.5.

5. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.6.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, wherein he has rejected the application for recall of the order dated 27.1.2025. Petitioner also assailed the order dated 27.1.2025 as well as the order dated 15.2.2018 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute in the present case pertains to the mutation of the property which was registered in the name of Ms. Urmila Devi and after her death an application for mutation was filed, which was contested by the petitioner as well as by the respondents. Ultimately the matter reached the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division in Case No. 00451/2018 Computerized Case No. C201804000000451, under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. In the said proceedings an application for impleadment was filed by respondent no.5, which was allowed before his name could be incorporated, the matter came to be decided finally, by means of order dated 27.1.2025 and an application for recall, which was filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 4.6.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was passed without giving any adequate opportunity of hearing and in fact the case was listed on 27.11.2024, on which date it was adjourned to 28.03.2024 and in the meanwhile application dated 22.12.2024 was preferred by respondent no.5 and the case was directed to be listed on 27.1.2025 and the petitioner was never given a copy of the application nor any notice was served upon him with regard to the preponement of the date and the matter was finally decided on 27.1.2025. Petitioner has given an application for recall, which was rejected on 4.6.2025 after recording that both the parties have been heard and accordingly the matter is not an exparte order and hence the application for recall was rejected.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances this Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the record and has passed the following order:- "1. Heard Sri Abhishek Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that the proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code were initiated by predecessor-in-interest of opposite party No.2 which application was allowed on 26.12.2013 by Tehsildar, Kadipur, District Sultanpur and the application for recall filed by the petitioner was also rejected which was assailed by the petitioner in revision before the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya. It has been submitted that the said revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was registered as case No.00451/2018 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 25.3.2025 vide order dated 27.11.2024. It has been submitted that without any notice to the petitioner it seems that the date of the case was pre-poned and the matter was finally heard ex-parte on 27.1.2025 and the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. It has further been submitted that a perusal of the impugned order dated 27.1.2025 would indicate that the order has been passed merely on perusal of the record and there is no averment of any of the parties who were heard.

4. When the petitioner came to know about the said order he had moved an application for recall duly stating aforesaid facts with regard to pre- ponement of the date and not providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and despite those facts being brought to the knowledge of the court the application for recall was rejected on 4.6.2025.

5. In case, the averments made by the petitioner are correct then certainly there is serious lapse of judicial propriety by the authority passing the impugned order which deserves to be taken serious note of. Any authority acting judicially is required to give due opportunity of hearing to either of the parties and while deciding the rights has to duly discuss various factual aspects as well as legal provisions cited by either of the parties. The adversarial system followed in our courts by the authorities do not envisage a situation where the judgments are passed without due opportunity of hearing or following the procedure prescribed by law which seems to be apparent on the face of the record in the present case. Accordingly, to examine the aforesaid facts, learned Standing counsel is directed to place original record of the aforesaid case before this Court on the next date.

6. List on 23.7.2025."

9. The original record has been produced by the learned Standing Counsel, from which it transpires that a hand written application has been given by respondent no.5 bringing on record the order of this Court dated 26.11.2024. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that a copy of the application dated 20.12.2024 was not given to learned counsel for the petitioner. The application was preferred by respondent no.5 on which the date of hearing was preponed from 28.3.2025 to 7.1.2025.

10. Apart from the above, the impugned order dated 7.1.2025 the file was put up on 7.1.2025, on which date it is recorded that the arguments were presented and the case was adjourned to 22.1.2025. On 22.1.2025 there was no mention of appearance of the parties but it was only recorded that the order could not be passed and the matter was fixed on 27.1.2025. On 27.1.2025 the impugned order was passed. From the entire order sheet it is abundantly clear that firstly the the application bringing on record the order passed by this Court was never given to the petitioner. The date fixed was never communicated by the Court to the petitioner, so as enable him to put in appearance. The order dated 7.1.2025 stating that the arguments were presented by the parties also does not inspire confidence for the reason that in case the arguments were completed I do not find any reason as to why the order was not pronounced or the matter was not reserved. Further even the order dated 22.1.2025 also does not mention the appearance of the parties or mention their oral submission. Most surprisingly the fact that the detailed judgment on 27.1.2025 has been passed only on the basis of perusal of the record which is evident from the second paragraph of page no. 2 of the impugned judgement.

11. From the above, I find that the rejection of the application for recall is also arbitrary stating that both the parties were heard on 27.1.2025 when the judgement was pronounced.

12. From the aforesaid fact, miscarriage of justice is evident on the face of record. Any application filed in the proceeding necessarily have to be given to the contesting parties, so as to enable him to effectively protect their interest and make adequate representation before the court concerned.

13. In case the application filed on 20.12.2024 was merely taken on record would have not caused prejudice to either of the parties, but instead of the revisional authority proceeded to prepone the date fixing the next date as 7.1.2025. Even if, there was reasonable ground for expediting the proceedings and changing the date already fixed, it was necessary that the same should have been done in presence of the parties concerned or at least notices of this order should have been given to the concerned parties. Merely passing an order preponing the matter without intimating to the contesting parties seriously causes prejudice and is contrary to the settled principle of propriety.

14. Accordingly, I find that the manner in which the revisional authorities proceeded in the matter does not indicate that they have followed the settled principle of judicial propriety and failed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further from a perusal of the order dated 27.1.2025 it is evident that the contentions raised by the petitioner should have been duly recorded in case he had appeared and argued the matter. But instead of recording his arguments merely averments made in the proceedings have been noted and the matter decided and even the arguments of the respondents have not been considered or recorded in the order dated 27.1.2025 and subsequently only an effort to uphold his order he has rejected the application for recall of the order dated 4.6.2025.

15. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that miscarriage of justice has substantially been caused to the petitioner, who has not been heard in the said proceedings. Accordingly the matter requires interference in the light of the above.

16. For the reasons recorded herein above, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 4.6.2025 and 27.1.2025 are set aside.

17. The matter is remitted to the Revisional Authority for passing fresh order in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. It would be in the interest of justice that the matter is placed before the Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, either he may hear the revision himself or direct any other competent authority to decide the revision with expedition.

18. The office of the Chief Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, forthwith, to conclude the same with expedition.

19. The parties have agreed that they shall appear before the revisional authority, so nominated by the Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, on 11.8.2025. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 23.7.2025 Muk MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench