Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 held-order passed utter violation of principle of Natural Justice-not sustainable. Held: Para 8 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the submissions raised on their behalf , the petitioners have a remedy of getting their rights declared by filing a regular suit. Nonetheless, keeping in view the law laid down in the judgment referred to herein above, the order expunging the entries that have continued for decades together ought not to have been passed without putting the petitioner to notice. Case law discussed Chaturgun and others Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2005 ALJ 756. (Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.) 1. Heard Sri M.N.Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 and Sri Ajit Singh for the respondent no.4. 2. The challenge is to the order dated 10.4.95 as upheld by the learned Commissioner in revision vide order dated 23.11.05 whereby the entries allegedly in favour of the petitioner have been expunged. 3. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner society is in possession of plot nos. 268M, 270M and 281M total area of 20 Bighas and 3 Biswas situate in Mauja Bingawan Pargana/Tahsil Kanpur , district Kanpur Nagar. It is submitted that the land in question was recorded in the name of the tenure holder since 1359 F and the said tenure holder executed a sale deed in favour of one Umesh Chandra Bharadwaj. The said Umesh Chandra Bharadwaj had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner society in 1966 where after the petitioner society is in continuous possession of the land in dispute. 4. It is alleged that an ex-parte report had been submitted by the revenue authority behind the back of the petitioner, and the S.D.M. vide order dated 10.4.95 directed the name of the petitioner society to be expunged from the revenue record. It is further alleged that the petitioner had no knowledge about the same and after obtaining a copy of the Khatauni they preferred a revision under section 219 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act which has been dismissed. 5. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that even if the proceeding had been under taken for expunging the name of the petitioner society then the same ought to have been done after giving an opportunity of hearing, and having not done so, the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. The submission advanced is that long standing entries should not be ordinarily expunged summarily and at least an opportunity should be given before passing such an order. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in the case of Chaturgun and others Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2005 ALJ 756. 7. Learned standing counsel and Sri Ajit Singh learned counsel for respondent no.4 contend that the entries in favour of the petitioner society are fictitious and manipulated inasmuch as they are not in
3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.P. and others 995 possession of any valid title over the land and that the entries have been manipulated which were rightly expunged by the S.D.M. They further contend that there is no requirement for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that the nature of the proceeding being summary in nature, the petition should not be entertained against such an order. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the submissions raised on their behalf , the petitioners have a remedy of getting their rights declared by filing a regular suit. Nonetheless, keeping in view the law laid down in the judgment referred to herein above, the order expunging the entries that have continued for decades together ought not to have been passed without putting the petitioner to notice. 9. In view of this no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending before this Court. The impugned order dated 10.4.95 as well as the order of the learned Commissioner dated 23.11.2005 are hereby set aside. The S.D.M respondent no.3 shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the S.D.M. be directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The S.D.M., Kanpur Nagar shall proceed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE R.K AGARWAL, J. THE HON’BLE JAYASHREE TIWARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64223 of 2009 Krishan Kumar Versus State of U.P. and others Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ashok Khare Sri Durga Tiwari Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ghanshyam Maurya Sri Sunil Kumar Singh Sri Sanjiv Singh C.S.C. …Petitioner …Respondents Constitution of India-Article 226-Natural Justice-Cancellation of Residence certificate-before cancellation No Notice or opportunity of hearing given-heldorder not sustainable. Held: Para 5 From a perusal of the order and the averments made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner stands established and the impugned order has been pased in gross violation of principle of equity, fair play and natural justice. The same cannot be sustained which is hereby set aside. The respondent no.3 may proceed in accordance with law. (Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.) 1. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner sought a writ , order
Page 1 and 2: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 7 and 8: 3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 21: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 25 and 26: 3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74:
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?