Chatar Singh vs State of U.P.

Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Shafi Ullah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.2.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer expunging the name of late Mangala. The petitioner claims himself to be the son of late Mangala.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 14.2.2000 is an ex parte order, which was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner''s father, whereas, in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner, a lease was granted in favour of the petitioner''s father in the year 1987.

Taking note of that, on 27.5.2014, this Court has directed the petitioner to file the copy of the patta. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has filed the receipt through supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order impugned has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner," but looking into the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court after a long period of 14 years and keeping in mind the dictum of the Apex Court in Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, Union of India and Another Vs. Tulsiram Patel and Others, I.J. Rao, Asstt. Collector of Customs and Another Vs. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh and Another, Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthi 2005 (6) SCC 321 : 2005 (54) AIC 430 (SC) Muzeeb Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others, and Chaturgun and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, the petitioner is provided post decisional hearing.

The petitioner may file an application, seeking recall of the order dated 14.2.2000 along with his objection to the impugned order, within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of the order of this Court.

In case such an application is filed before the respondent No. 2, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merit in accordance with law expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the learned Counsel for the parties, after hearing all concerned by passing a reasoned and speaking order, if possible, within a period of six months from the date of filing of such an application.

It is provided that in case the petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute, he will not be dispossessed till the disposal of the recall application.

It may be clarified that I have not addressed myself on the merit of the case and the respondent No. 2 is free to pass an independent order in accordance with law on its own merit. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of.