Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALDEO AND OTHERS versus COMMISSIONER CHITRAKUT DHAM AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Baldeo And Others v. Commissioner Chitrakut Dham And Others - WRIT - C No. 3253 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 6825 (16 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No.23)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3253 of  1999

Baldeo and others Versus  Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Banda and others.

Hon'ble S.U, Khan, J.

Pattas granted to petitioners on 4.5.1997 approved by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) concerned on 12.7.1997 have been cancelled by D.M Mahoba through order dated 8.6.1998 by using the magic word ''farzi'. It appears that revenue officers are extremely fond of using the word farzi and after using the word farzi they can deprive any one of his property. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that there was some variation in the lists of deserving candidates. For the said purpose, documents were perused by the District Magistrate. Unfortunately D.M did not consider it necessary to hear the persons concerned. District Magistrate has noted the argument of DGC (Revenue) that as everything is farzi hence it is not necessary to hear allottees. The allotment had been approved by the SDO. If allotment was farzi then action of SDO approving the allotment was also farzi. It is not understandable that why action has not been taken or suggested to be taken against SDO concerned. Against order dated 8.6.1998 petitioner filed revision No. 248 of 1998. Additional Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham Banda dismissed the revision on 28.10.1998, hence this writ petition.

I have repeatedly held that what ever may be the nature of allegation against a person still before taking any action against him, he must be heard . If allotment proceeding was Farzi then of course allotment could very well be cancelled or declared nonest, apart from that even criminal action might also be taken against the person concerned, Land Management Committee members and S.D.O who would have been part and parcel of the farzi proceeding. However, it is necessary to hear the persons concerned. If effected persons are not heard before taking any action the court gets an impression that every thing is being kept secret and the intention of the authorities who are passing the orders without hearing persons cornered are not honest and they are afraid that if persons concerned are heard then they would not be able to pass such orders. The authority of the Supreme Court reported in U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee Vs. Dr. B.S. Nandwani AIR 1991 SC 909 referred to in the impugned order has been discussed by me in the authority of Chatrughan Vs. State 2005 (98) RD 244. The authority of the Supreme Court was under unique facts and circumstances. An order of this High Court had been forged and several students had got admission on the basis of forged order. The said order had never been passed. The Supreme Court got summoned the original file of the High Court. In view of the original file before the Supreme Court alongwith letter of Registrar and in view of the fact that number of effected persons was quite large  no useful purpose would have been served by individual notice. Supreme Court passed the order without hearing the concerned persons. They never made any complaint afterwards before the Supreme Court. The said authority is being constantly misinterpreted by the revenue authorities. They are passing orders without hearing the concerned persons. The authority of Board of Revenue relied upon in the impugned order has been overruled by me in the above authority of Chatrughan.

Accordingly both the impugned orders are set-aside, however, it is clarified that if Collector / D.M Mahoba is of the opinion that proceedings were forged  then not only Patta must be declared to be void and nonest but criminal proceedings must also be initiated against all the concerned persons. However, decision must be taken after hearing all the effected persons. All the effected person are directed to appear before D.M Mahoba on 18.6.2007 alongwith their detailed objections supported by documentary evidence on which they want to place reliance. Thereafter matter must be decided by the D.M. If on 18.6.2007, any of the petitioners does   not   appear   before   District

Magistrate concerned or does not file any objection then this writ petition in respect of allotment dated 4.5.1997 in his case shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

If D.M / Collector comes to the conclusion that no allotment was made on 4.5.1997 then the allotment must be declared to be fake and nonest. However, if the D.M comes to the conclusion that in fact allotment was made but it was either irregular or illegal then the proceedings should be taken under section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act.

Accordingly, Writ petition is disposed of. Impugned orders are set-aside.

Let a copy of this order be given free of cost to Sri Haider Zaidi learned standing counsel present in court within a week for immediate communication to the District Magistrate, Mahoba .

Waqar

16.4.2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.