High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Govind Kumar Chourasia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Tushar Gupta holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta for respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda whereby he has rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner agaisnt the order dated 7.9.2010 passed by Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was allotted the land of gata No.330 Min. area 0.006 hectare situated in Village Mahragaura, Pargana Babhanipayar, Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda which was recorded as abadi land on 11.3.1994 by the Land Management Committee of Village Mahragaura, Pargana Babhanipayar, Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda. The petitioner was peacefully occupying the said land where on the basis of the report of Lekhpal dated 2.7.1996 proceedings for cancellation of the said patta was initiated. The petitioner had participated in the said proceedings and also filed his objection. It is stated that the case was listed on 26.2.2007 on which date the petitioner was present in the court but when the case was taken up no one appeared on behalf of the State/Gaon Sabha and consequently the case was dismissed in default and the record was directed to be consigned to the record.

4. On coming to know of the said order the petitioner left the court premises but subsequently it is only in December, 2024 when the petitioner came to know that the order dated 26.2.2007 had been recalled and without issuing any notice to the petitioner the matter was re-heard and final orders were passed on 7.9.2010 cancelling the patta allotted in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner came to know from the villagers only on 24.12.2024 that the patta has been cancelled and consequently preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Administration) who found that the revision was filed after 14 years of passing of the impugned order of cancellation of patta and found that the delay was unexplained and accordingly has rejected the revision only on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 26.2.2007 the following orders were passed:- "Case called out many times. None appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. opposite party appeared. Dismissed in default. Record consigned in the record room. Dated 26.2.2007."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it seems that on the same day an application for recall was filed by the Gaon Sabha and on the application itself order dated 26.2.2007 was recalled on 12.4.2007 but there is no dispute that the copy of the application was never served upon the petitioner nor any notice issued. Despite the fact that the order dated 26.2.2007 was passed in presence of the petitioner but without giving any notice to the petitioner behind his back the order dated 26.2.2007 was recalled on 12.4.2007. Apart from the above, the Chief Revenue Officer has proceeded to consider and decide the said matter finally on 7.9.2010 without issuing notice to the petitioner ex-parte. Even in the order dated 7.9.2010 there is no mention that the petitioner was ever given a notice or heard in the proceedings. It is in aforesaid circumstances that it has been submitted that the proceedings on application for recall were not within the knowledge of the petitioner. It is only when in the village on 24.12.2024 he heard a rumour that the allotment has been cancelled, he went to inspect the record and came to know about the order dated 7.9.2010 and filed revision subsequently.

6. It is submitted that despite giving cogent reasons and material for the delay in filing the revision the Additional Commissioner (Administration) has erroneously and arbitrarily rejected the revision rejecting the application for condonation of delay and accordingly prayed for setting aside the order dated 2.5.2025 as well as order dated 7.9.2010.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid fact.

8. Considering the rival contentions, it is found from a perusal of the order sheet that a case against the petitioner under Section 115 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was dismissed in default on 26.2.2007. When the said order was passed the petitioner was present but immediately thereafter an application was given by counsel for Gaon Sabha and the Tehsildar in a most illegal and arbitrary manner without giving due notice to the petitioner recalled the order dated 26.2.2007 on 12.4.2007 but there is no dispute that copy of the application was never served upon the petitioner.

9. Apart from recalling the order the Tehsildar further proceeded to hear and decide the case without associating the petitioner any further with the said proceedings. Once an order has been passed in favour of the petitioner at the time when he was present in the court, there was no requirement to know the status of the case subsequently and the petitioner had gone back after verifying the fact that the case against him has been dismissed. In the aforesaid circumstances it was incumbent upon the Chief Revenue Officer to have issued notice to the petitioner in case he had thought it proper to recall the order dated 26.2.2007 wherein the case was dismissed in default. Accordingly, considering the fact that he had proceeded to hear the same matter on 7.9.2010 ex-parte is clearly arbitrary and illegal and in any view of the matter he ought to have associated the petitioner during the said proceedings failing which the impugned order dated 7.9.2010 is rendered illegal and arbitrary and accordingly deserves to be quashed.

10. This Court further finds that the order dated 2.5.2025 also suffers from manifest error of law and fact in as much as on the same facts the revisional authority has rejected the application for condonation of delay. It is further found that sufficient reasons were disclosed by the petitioner necessitating condonation of delay and even a perusal of the records supports the contentions of the petitioner in as much as the order dated 26.2.2007 was recalled on 12.4.2007 on an application moved by counsel for the Gaon Sabha without serving a copy of the said application upon the petitioner and even without issuing notices to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court finds that the order dated 2.5.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda is illegal and arbitrary.

11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 2.5.2025 and 7.9.2010 are quashed.

12. The matter is remanded back to Chief Revenue Officer for deciding afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 20.8.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Govind Kumar Chourasia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Tushar Gupta holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta for respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda whereby he has rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner agaisnt the order dated 7.9.2010 passed by Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was allotted the land of gata No.330 Min. area 0.006 hectare situated in Village Mahragaura, Pargana Babhanipayar, Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda which was recorded as abadi land on 11.3.1994 by the Land Management Committee of Village Mahragaura, Pargana Babhanipayar, Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda. The petitioner was peacefully occupying the said land where on the basis of the report of Lekhpal dated 2.7.1996 proceedings for cancellation of the said patta was initiated. The petitioner had participated in the said proceedings and also filed his objection. It is stated that the case was listed on 26.2.2007 on which date the petitioner was present in the court but when the case was taken up no one appeared on behalf of the State/Gaon Sabha and consequently the case was dismissed in default and the record was directed to be consigned to the record.

4. On coming to know of the said order the petitioner left the court premises but subsequently it is only in December, 2024 when the petitioner came to know that the order dated 26.2.2007 had been recalled and without issuing any notice to the petitioner the matter was re-heard and final orders were passed on 7.9.2010 cancelling the patta allotted in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner came to know from the villagers only on 24.12.2024 that the patta has been cancelled and consequently preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Administration) who found that the revision was filed after 14 years of passing of the impugned order of cancellation of patta and found that the delay was unexplained and accordingly has rejected the revision only on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 26.2.2007 the following orders were passed:- "Case called out many times. None appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. opposite party appeared. Dismissed in default. Record consigned in the record room. Dated 26.2.2007."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it seems that on the same day an application for recall was filed by the Gaon Sabha and on the application itself order dated 26.2.2007 was recalled on 12.4.2007 but there is no dispute that the copy of the application was never served upon the petitioner nor any notice issued. Despite the fact that the order dated 26.2.2007 was passed in presence of the petitioner but without giving any notice to the petitioner behind his back the order dated 26.2.2007 was recalled on 12.4.2007. Apart from the above, the Chief Revenue Officer has proceeded to consider and decide the said matter finally on 7.9.2010 without issuing notice to the petitioner ex-parte. Even in the order dated 7.9.2010 there is no mention that the petitioner was ever given a notice or heard in the proceedings. It is in aforesaid circumstances that it has been submitted that the proceedings on application for recall were not within the knowledge of the petitioner. It is only when in the village on 24.12.2024 he heard a rumour that the allotment has been cancelled, he went to inspect the record and came to know about the order dated 7.9.2010 and filed revision subsequently.

6. It is submitted that despite giving cogent reasons and material for the delay in filing the revision the Additional Commissioner (Administration) has erroneously and arbitrarily rejected the revision rejecting the application for condonation of delay and accordingly prayed for setting aside the order dated 2.5.2025 as well as order dated 7.9.2010.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid fact.

8. Considering the rival contentions, it is found from a perusal of the order sheet that a case against the petitioner under Section 115 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was dismissed in default on 26.2.2007. When the said order was passed the petitioner was present but immediately thereafter an application was given by counsel for Gaon Sabha and the Tehsildar in a most illegal and arbitrary manner without giving due notice to the petitioner recalled the order dated 26.2.2007 on 12.4.2007 but there is no dispute that copy of the application was never served upon the petitioner.

9. Apart from recalling the order the Tehsildar further proceeded to hear and decide the case without associating the petitioner any further with the said proceedings. Once an order has been passed in favour of the petitioner at the time when he was present in the court, there was no requirement to know the status of the case subsequently and the petitioner had gone back after verifying the fact that the case against him has been dismissed. In the aforesaid circumstances it was incumbent upon the Chief Revenue Officer to have issued notice to the petitioner in case he had thought it proper to recall the order dated 26.2.2007 wherein the case was dismissed in default. Accordingly, considering the fact that he had proceeded to hear the same matter on 7.9.2010 ex-parte is clearly arbitrary and illegal and in any view of the matter he ought to have associated the petitioner during the said proceedings failing which the impugned order dated 7.9.2010 is rendered illegal and arbitrary and accordingly deserves to be quashed.

10. This Court further finds that the order dated 2.5.2025 also suffers from manifest error of law and fact in as much as on the same facts the revisional authority has rejected the application for condonation of delay. It is further found that sufficient reasons were disclosed by the petitioner necessitating condonation of delay and even a perusal of the records supports the contentions of the petitioner in as much as the order dated 26.2.2007 was recalled on 12.4.2007 on an application moved by counsel for the Gaon Sabha without serving a copy of the said application upon the petitioner and even without issuing notices to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court finds that the order dated 2.5.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda is illegal and arbitrary.

11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 2.5.2025 and 7.9.2010 are quashed.

12. The matter is remanded back to Chief Revenue Officer for deciding afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 20.8.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench