Janki Prasad vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notices on behalf Respondents No. 1 to 5 and Sri. Mahesh Narain Singh, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha-Respondent No. 6.

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.10.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional-Officer, Tehsil Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, the Respondent No. 3 as well as the order dated 25.01.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly, the Respondent No. 5 (Annexures No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition respectively).

It is contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the Petitioner who is an Ex-Army Man, was granted Assami Patta on 05.04.1966 by the Land Management Committee, pursuant to which, his name was also mutated in the revenue records in column No. 3 and all of a sudden the Respondent No. 2 submitted its report on 30.12.2005, for ejectment of the Petitioner from the leased land, copy of which was not served upon the Petitioner and without giving any copy of the plaint, the Respondent No. 3 passed the order dated 08.10.2009 whereby expunging the name of the Petitioner from the revenue records as well as for ejectment of the Petitioner by cancelling the lease. It is further contended that the Petitioner filed a recall application, which was allowed and since the Petitioner was not given any report, copy of the plaint, therefore the Petitioner could not file his written station and relying totally on the report of the concerned Tehsildar, the order dated 08.10.2009 was passed for cancelling the lease of the Petitioner against which the Petitioner filed a revision No. 4 of 2009-10 before the Respondent No. 5 which was also dismissed by an order dated25.01.2011 in an illegal manner. It is thus contended that the orders impugned have been passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petition.

The main contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the proceedings undertaken against the Petitioner for cancellation of his Assami lease should have been undertaken after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and in this case, the same has not been done, therefore, the orders impugned cannot be sustained, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the long standing entries should not be expunged in an ordinary and summary manner Learned Counsel in his contention also relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Chaturgun and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, in support of his contention.

Sri. Mahesh Narain Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 6 has contended that the Assami Patta is granted for a fixed period of five years and thereafter, the lease holder becomes a trespassers and in the present case, period of five years has expired long back. It is thus, argued that the name of the Petitioner is liable to be expunged and no opportunity of hearing is liable to be given to the Petitioner before expunging the name from the revenue records.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the orders impugned as well as averments made in the present petition, this Court is of the opinion, that the Petitioner has got a remedy open to him by filing a Civil Suit in getting their rights declared, keeping in view the decision of Chaturgun (Supra), the order expunging the entries is continued since decades without granting appropriate opportunity to the Petitioner cannot be sustained.

In view of above, the orders dated 08.10.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional-Officer, Tehsil Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, the Respondent No. 3 as well as the order dated 25.01.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly, the Respondent No. 5 are hereby set aside and the Respondent No. 3 is directed to pass fresh order in the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to Petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner undertakes to file an appropriate application alongwith certified copy of this order before the Respondent No. 3 within a period of 15 days from today.

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed off.