Gopal vs State of U.P. and Others

Ran Vijai Singh, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.5.2008 and 21.6.2008 passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively. Vide order dated 29.5.2008, in a proceeding under Rule 176-A (2) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, lease granted to the petitioner was determined.

It is contended that the aforesaid order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Learned Standing Counsel states that order impugned is revisable.

However, from the perusal of the impugned judgment, he could not show that the petitioner''s version has ever been considered. It is recorded in the order that registered notice was sent to the petitioner and it was served. The case of the petitioner is that he was not served with the notice and the impugned order has been passed without having version of the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioners are provided post decisional hearing which is a well recognized in view of the decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. Reference may be given 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 Vs. V.K. Awasthy, , Muzeeb Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others, and Chaturgun and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .

Taking note of the above cases, the petitioner is directed to file an application seeking recall of the order dated 29.5.2008 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bijnor. In case, such an application is filed within a period of three weeks from today taking all those grounds which have been taken in this writ petition, the same may be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the learned Counsel for the parties. Till the final decision is taken on the petitioner''s application, status quo as on date with regard to nature and possession shall be maintained. In the meantime, the parties shall not create any third party right over the land in dispute. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of.