Ram Pratap And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And

2. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri M.B. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents no. 4 and 9.

3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Tehsil Shahabad, District Hardoi.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings for cancellation of the Patta which has been allotted in favour of the father of the petitioners no. 1 and 2, namely, Shri Krishna, on Gata No. 549 situated at village Kareem Nagar, Pargana Mansoor Nagar, Tehsil Shahabad, District Hardoi, measuring area 0.1900 hectares and 0.1520 hectares and also to opposite party no. 3 0.1520 hectares was allotted in

1988. Subsequently after the death of the father of petitioners no.1 and 2 their names were mutated in the revenue records being legal heirs of original patta holders. The opposite parties no. 3 to 10 had filed a complaint on

20.08.2022 stating that pattas have been allotted illegally and arbitrarily and that the predecessor father of petitioners was not entitled for grant of patta. tot he The petitioners had filed a detailed objection with regard 2 WRIC No. 7912 of 2025 maintainability of the proceedings and as per the original record produced before this Court the matter was heard on 28.7.2025 and fixed for judgment on 30.7.2025.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgement was pronounced in favour of the petitioners and the objections were rejected but subsequently they came to know that another judgment has been passed on the same day in the same matter contrary to the previous judgement and now the patta of the petitioners was cancelled. It was stated that both the orders were uploaded on the website and copies of the same have been filed before this Court.

6. On noticing the contention of the petitioners this Court had passed following order on 26.8.2025:- "1. Heard Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri M. B. Tiwari, learned counsel who has put in appearance and filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.s 4 and 9. The vakalatnama is taken on record.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that opposite party Nos. 3 to 10 filed an application for cancellation of the patta of the petitioners stating that father of the petitioners was not eligible for grant of the patta and after considering the objections filed by the petitioners, the matter was decided in favour of petitioners by means of order dated 30.7.2025. A copy of the said order passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Hardoi has been annexed along with the writ petition. It has been submitted that on the same day the order was changed and a fresh order was uploaded whereby the patta of the petitioners stood cancelled and the application of the opposite parties has been allowed. The petitioners have submitted that on the same day in the same matter the same authority has passed two separate judgments totally contradictory with each other and, therefore, there is breach of judicial propriety in as much as once the first order was passed in favour of the petitioners the competent authority became functus officio and could not have passed another order on the same day. He has further submitted that both the orders have been uploaded and are available on record. He further submits that apart from these two orders there is no other order available on the website which may indicate as to what prompted opposite party No.2 to pass two orders on the same date. 3. Accordingly, let the original record of the case and also the original note book of the Steno concerned /record of the Peshkar concerned be produced before this Court on the next date along with personal affidavit of opposite party No.2 justifying the action of passing two separate contradictory orders on the same date.

4. List on 3rd September, 2025 in top ten cases." 3 WRIC No. 7912 of 2025

7. It is in pursuance of the direction of this Court personal affidavits has been filed by Ms. Priyanka Singh, Additional District Magistrate, Hardoi. In the said affidavit in paragraph no. 6 it has been stated that both the parties were given opportunity to present evidence and be heard on 23.7.2025 and after hearing the arguments of both the parties, 25.7.2025 was fixed for final hearing. It has been stated that written arguments were filed by the opposite parties on 30.7.2025 and after going through the written arguments the Presiding Officer came to know that the order has been passed contrary on the basis of erroneous record so detailed order has been passed by the Presiding Officer to rectify the error and the previous order was cancelled and the fresh order was uploaded.

8. From the above, it is clear that firstly the judgment was pronounced on 30.7.2025 and after pronouncement of the judgement the Presiding Officer looked into the written arguments filed on 30.7.2025 and then came to know that there is an error, accordingly passed a fresh judgement on the same day, after cancelling the above. With regard to the production of the note book of stenographer in paragraph 9 it has been stated that no post of stenographer for judicial work in the court and all the orders were typed by the Peshkar after the dictation of the Presiding officer on the computer. Therefore, neither record of Steno concerned/ record of Peshkar is available nor arranged systematically.

9. From the above order it is clear that the order was pronounced and uploaded and subsequently another order to the contrary was uploaded. This manner deciding the case is clearly contrary to the settled principle of judicial propriety. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) was presiding over the court as per the provision of U.P. Revenue Code and was deciding the validity of the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners.

10. The parties were heard on 28.7.2025 and the judgement was reserved, which was pronounced on 30.7.2025 and uploaded on the portal. At this stage, it is provided that once the order was signed and pronounced and uploaded the Presiding Officer did not have any power to revisit the judgment passed by her or to make any correction on the same unless and until appropriate application was moved by the parties or a note was prepared by the Presiding Officer herself.

11. In the present case there is no dispute that no application was preferred by the petitioner or by the private respondents to correct the said judgment as the same was erroneous nor any application for review or modification was moved by the parties. From the original file I do not find any ground which indicate that the Presiding Officer herself after perusing of the previous order dated 30.7.2025 has found it fit to pass a subsequent order as certain infirmities has held.

12. I further notice that the subsequent order does not rectify any error but is a dramatically opposes the judgment to the previous judgment / order passed by her. 4 WRIC No. 7912 of 2025 While initially the case was decided in favour of the petitioner but subsequently on the basis of the same facts, the judgment was reversed and was decided against the petitioners. Therefore, it is not a mere correction but a fresh order which has been passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), which is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

12. I have no doubt that she has misused her powers in the capacity of Presiding Officer by conducting the matter herein above. The petitioner has levelled serious allegations as mentioned in paragraph 30 of the writ petition with regard to the demand of illegal gratification for passing the favorable order.

13. This Court is not in a position to adjudicate the said issue pertaining to demand of illegal gratification but in the facts of the present case, this aspect of the matter let to be inquired by the Competent Authority and accordingly Secretary, Revenue U.P. is directed to look into the matter.

14. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the considered view that in any particular dispute two contrary judgments cannot be passed by the Presiding Officer and without entering into the merits of the controversy this ground alone I deem it fit to allow the writ petition and set aside both the orders dated 30.7.2025 and the matter is remitted to the Competent Authority for deciding the issue afresh. The District Magistrate is directed to nominate the present matter to any other officer other than the officer who has decided the previous order for deciding the present case afresh, in accordance with law.

15. With the aforesaid direction the instant petition stands allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. September 3, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri M.B. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents no. 4 and 9.

3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Tehsil Shahabad, District Hardoi.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings for cancellation of the Patta which has been allotted in favour of the father of the petitioners no. 1 and 2, namely, Shri Krishna, on Gata No. 549 situated at village Kareem Nagar, Pargana Mansoor Nagar, Tehsil Shahabad, District Hardoi, measuring area 0.1900 hectares and 0.1520 hectares and also to opposite party no. 3 0.1520 hectares was allotted in

1988. Subsequently after the death of the father of petitioners no.1 and 2 their names were mutated in the revenue records being legal heirs of original patta holders. The opposite parties no. 3 to 10 had filed a complaint on

20.08.2022 stating that pattas have been allotted illegally and arbitrarily and that the predecessor father of petitioners was not entitled for grant of patta. tot he The petitioners had filed a detailed objection with regard 2 WRIC No. 7912 of 2025 maintainability of the proceedings and as per the original record produced before this Court the matter was heard on 28.7.2025 and fixed for judgment on 30.7.2025.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgement was pronounced in favour of the petitioners and the objections were rejected but subsequently they came to know that another judgment has been passed on the same day in the same matter contrary to the previous judgement and now the patta of the petitioners was cancelled. It was stated that both the orders were uploaded on the website and copies of the same have been filed before this Court.

6. On noticing the contention of the petitioners this Court had passed following order on 26.8.2025:- "1. Heard Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri M. B. Tiwari, learned counsel who has put in appearance and filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.s 4 and 9. The vakalatnama is taken on record.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that opposite party Nos. 3 to 10 filed an application for cancellation of the patta of the petitioners stating that father of the petitioners was not eligible for grant of the patta and after considering the objections filed by the petitioners, the matter was decided in favour of petitioners by means of order dated 30.7.2025. A copy of the said order passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Hardoi has been annexed along with the writ petition. It has been submitted that on the same day the order was changed and a fresh order was uploaded whereby the patta of the petitioners stood cancelled and the application of the opposite parties has been allowed. The petitioners have submitted that on the same day in the same matter the same authority has passed two separate judgments totally contradictory with each other and, therefore, there is breach of judicial propriety in as much as once the first order was passed in favour of the petitioners the competent authority became functus officio and could not have passed another order on the same day. He has further submitted that both the orders have been uploaded and are available on record. He further submits that apart from these two orders there is no other order available on the website which may indicate as to what prompted opposite party No.2 to pass two orders on the same date. 3. Accordingly, let the original record of the case and also the original note book of the Steno concerned /record of the Peshkar concerned be produced before this Court on the next date along with personal affidavit of opposite party No.2 justifying the action of passing two separate contradictory orders on the same date.

4. List on 3rd September, 2025 in top ten cases." 3 WRIC No. 7912 of 2025

7. It is in pursuance of the direction of this Court personal affidavits has been filed by Ms. Priyanka Singh, Additional District Magistrate, Hardoi. In the said affidavit in paragraph no. 6 it has been stated that both the parties were given opportunity to present evidence and be heard on 23.7.2025 and after hearing the arguments of both the parties, 25.7.2025 was fixed for final hearing. It has been stated that written arguments were filed by the opposite parties on 30.7.2025 and after going through the written arguments the Presiding Officer came to know that the order has been passed contrary on the basis of erroneous record so detailed order has been passed by the Presiding Officer to rectify the error and the previous order was cancelled and the fresh order was uploaded.

8. From the above, it is clear that firstly the judgment was pronounced on 30.7.2025 and after pronouncement of the judgement the Presiding Officer looked into the written arguments filed on 30.7.2025 and then came to know that there is an error, accordingly passed a fresh judgement on the same day, after cancelling the above. With regard to the production of the note book of stenographer in paragraph 9 it has been stated that no post of stenographer for judicial work in the court and all the orders were typed by the Peshkar after the dictation of the Presiding officer on the computer. Therefore, neither record of Steno concerned/ record of Peshkar is available nor arranged systematically.

9. From the above order it is clear that the order was pronounced and uploaded and subsequently another order to the contrary was uploaded. This manner deciding the case is clearly contrary to the settled principle of judicial propriety. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) was presiding over the court as per the provision of U.P. Revenue Code and was deciding the validity of the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners.

10. The parties were heard on 28.7.2025 and the judgement was reserved, which was pronounced on 30.7.2025 and uploaded on the portal. At this stage, it is provided that once the order was signed and pronounced and uploaded the Presiding Officer did not have any power to revisit the judgment passed by her or to make any correction on the same unless and until appropriate application was moved by the parties or a note was prepared by the Presiding Officer herself.

11. In the present case there is no dispute that no application was preferred by the petitioner or by the private respondents to correct the said judgment as the same was erroneous nor any application for review or modification was moved by the parties. From the original file I do not find any ground which indicate that the Presiding Officer herself after perusing of the previous order dated 30.7.2025 has found it fit to pass a subsequent order as certain infirmities has held.

12. I further notice that the subsequent order does not rectify any error but is a dramatically opposes the judgment to the previous judgment / order passed by her. 4 WRIC No. 7912 of 2025 While initially the case was decided in favour of the petitioner but subsequently on the basis of the same facts, the judgment was reversed and was decided against the petitioners. Therefore, it is not a mere correction but a fresh order which has been passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), which is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

12. I have no doubt that she has misused her powers in the capacity of Presiding Officer by conducting the matter herein above. The petitioner has levelled serious allegations as mentioned in paragraph 30 of the writ petition with regard to the demand of illegal gratification for passing the favorable order.

13. This Court is not in a position to adjudicate the said issue pertaining to demand of illegal gratification but in the facts of the present case, this aspect of the matter let to be inquired by the Competent Authority and accordingly Secretary, Revenue U.P. is directed to look into the matter.

14. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the considered view that in any particular dispute two contrary judgments cannot be passed by the Presiding Officer and without entering into the merits of the controversy this ground alone I deem it fit to allow the writ petition and set aside both the orders dated 30.7.2025 and the matter is remitted to the Competent Authority for deciding the issue afresh. The District Magistrate is directed to nominate the present matter to any other officer other than the officer who has decided the previous order for deciding the present case afresh, in accordance with law.

15. With the aforesaid direction the instant petition stands allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. September 3, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench